The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Prodigal: "Hell, I'll bet a significant percentage of these McIntosh clones grew up in a household where they had a stay at home mom who watched Geraldo, Montel, Ricky Lake and their young minds picked up debating tactics early on - shout really loud, insult those you disagree with, and throw in some zingers - WIN!"
And this is different from the majority of Rerolled's debating tactics how?
And this is different from the majority of Rerolled's debating tactics how?
radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Iannis: "Look at Tanoomba. That's the footsoldier, basically."
My schtick has pretty much been pointing out ignorance, hypocrisy and outright idiocy in the anti-SJW crowd (specifically, here on Rerolled). Believe it or not, that doesn't actually make me an SJW.
Aladain: "I think it's just as simple as this issue really isn't a liberal vs. conservative one. It is so obvious that the SJW movement is one of the most toxic awful things to ever come out of the internet that anyone with half a brain can figure out that it's wrong.
I just wish, in this case, law enforcement would take a bigger role. When you have scientists committing suicide because of the SJW movement attacking them falsely, the line has to be drawn. I do not agree with policing internet comments and general contents, but I'm all for policing centralized individuals like this fat harper whale who organize and "command their mindless drones" to endless attacks on others."
I'll agree that it's very easy to see SJWs as the bad guys when you can ascribe anything bad that happens to SJWs. Remember when everyone got their panties in a bunch every time GamerGate was blamed for threats and harassment? Somehow it's totally acceptable to blame SJWs when a man chooses to commit suicide after being called a racist. SJWs... they're whatever villain you need them to be! (Don't you DARE besmirch GamerGaters, though, or THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY.)
AngryGerbil: "But we can't do that either because then we become the spineless censors. The Sarkypoos of the world must be allowed to speak. Our weapon isn't police policing policies, it is ridicule. Pure unadulterated ridicule. George Carlin is the model hero.
If you notice now going forward (or if you ever read backwards in time here, as I sometimes do on old threads) how often Tanoomba states that the worst thing about 'us' is our constant use of ridicule. He doesn't yet see how much influence he has over what he gets back."
Jesus Christ, I really hate to use pejorative labels here but you are a fucking idiot.
1) George Carlin was a comedian. He was an artist whose craft was humor. His job was to make us laugh and he often did so using ridicule and he was brilliant. And for all the times he had us in stitches, he never once contributed to fixing any of the problems he was ridiculing. His goal was never to "fix" anything, it was to point out how ridiculous the world can be and MAKE US LAUGH. You, on the other hand, fail miserably on both counts. I don't know if you realize this, but Carlin's humor was more than just "being an asshole". It takes tremendous effort and dedication to hone that talent and write material that is both insightful and hilarious, and the fact that you would think to compare your forced, unfunny, and counterproductive idiocy to Carlin is an insult to everything he stood for. Fuck you.
2) As for "how much influence I have over what I get back", here again is where the point flies WAAAAAAY over your head. When you ridicule me, I don't see it as a reflection of my actions. I CAN'T see it that way, because you're using the lowest form of communication to try to get that point across. If you're using ridicule, you've already lost. It's a reflection of a failure on YOUR part, not mine, and if anything it only serves to reinforce that I actually DO know what I'm talking about and that you have no other way to counter it than with pointless, mindless ridicule.
This is how I know when I scored a point against Lithose, for instance. He is a highly intelligent guy who can argue his point of view very well and back it up with citations and evidence. When he eschews all that to go off on a condescending snark rant, I know I hit a nerve. The whole "I don't need to acknowledge what you said because it's so stupid" defense is an admission of defeat. Literally saying nothing at all would have a stronger effect than ridicule would in terms of getting me to reflect on my own position. But that doesn't come with the same ego boost and high-fives from fellow bros, does it?
You are a weak-willed coward of a man who gets joy from telling yourself you're better than other people. However, in order to prevent yourself from seeing a gaping asshole every time you look in the mirror, you've convinced yourself you're somehow doing the "right" thing when you ridicule others, that your childish and incredibly counterproductive behavior (you'll notice "counterproductive" comes up a lot in these discussions) is justified and even helpful (somehow, despite any and all possible evidence saying otherwise). I would hope that one day you'll grow up and realize what a colossal douchebag you've been, but I'm not terribly optimistic.
My schtick has pretty much been pointing out ignorance, hypocrisy and outright idiocy in the anti-SJW crowd (specifically, here on Rerolled). Believe it or not, that doesn't actually make me an SJW.
Aladain: "I think it's just as simple as this issue really isn't a liberal vs. conservative one. It is so obvious that the SJW movement is one of the most toxic awful things to ever come out of the internet that anyone with half a brain can figure out that it's wrong.
I just wish, in this case, law enforcement would take a bigger role. When you have scientists committing suicide because of the SJW movement attacking them falsely, the line has to be drawn. I do not agree with policing internet comments and general contents, but I'm all for policing centralized individuals like this fat harper whale who organize and "command their mindless drones" to endless attacks on others."
I'll agree that it's very easy to see SJWs as the bad guys when you can ascribe anything bad that happens to SJWs. Remember when everyone got their panties in a bunch every time GamerGate was blamed for threats and harassment? Somehow it's totally acceptable to blame SJWs when a man chooses to commit suicide after being called a racist. SJWs... they're whatever villain you need them to be! (Don't you DARE besmirch GamerGaters, though, or THERE WILL BE HELL TO PAY.)
AngryGerbil: "But we can't do that either because then we become the spineless censors. The Sarkypoos of the world must be allowed to speak. Our weapon isn't police policing policies, it is ridicule. Pure unadulterated ridicule. George Carlin is the model hero.
If you notice now going forward (or if you ever read backwards in time here, as I sometimes do on old threads) how often Tanoomba states that the worst thing about 'us' is our constant use of ridicule. He doesn't yet see how much influence he has over what he gets back."
Jesus Christ, I really hate to use pejorative labels here but you are a fucking idiot.
1) George Carlin was a comedian. He was an artist whose craft was humor. His job was to make us laugh and he often did so using ridicule and he was brilliant. And for all the times he had us in stitches, he never once contributed to fixing any of the problems he was ridiculing. His goal was never to "fix" anything, it was to point out how ridiculous the world can be and MAKE US LAUGH. You, on the other hand, fail miserably on both counts. I don't know if you realize this, but Carlin's humor was more than just "being an asshole". It takes tremendous effort and dedication to hone that talent and write material that is both insightful and hilarious, and the fact that you would think to compare your forced, unfunny, and counterproductive idiocy to Carlin is an insult to everything he stood for. Fuck you.
2) As for "how much influence I have over what I get back", here again is where the point flies WAAAAAAY over your head. When you ridicule me, I don't see it as a reflection of my actions. I CAN'T see it that way, because you're using the lowest form of communication to try to get that point across. If you're using ridicule, you've already lost. It's a reflection of a failure on YOUR part, not mine, and if anything it only serves to reinforce that I actually DO know what I'm talking about and that you have no other way to counter it than with pointless, mindless ridicule.
This is how I know when I scored a point against Lithose, for instance. He is a highly intelligent guy who can argue his point of view very well and back it up with citations and evidence. When he eschews all that to go off on a condescending snark rant, I know I hit a nerve. The whole "I don't need to acknowledge what you said because it's so stupid" defense is an admission of defeat. Literally saying nothing at all would have a stronger effect than ridicule would in terms of getting me to reflect on my own position. But that doesn't come with the same ego boost and high-fives from fellow bros, does it?
You are a weak-willed coward of a man who gets joy from telling yourself you're better than other people. However, in order to prevent yourself from seeing a gaping asshole every time you look in the mirror, you've convinced yourself you're somehow doing the "right" thing when you ridicule others, that your childish and incredibly counterproductive behavior (you'll notice "counterproductive" comes up a lot in these discussions) is justified and even helpful (somehow, despite any and all possible evidence saying otherwise). I would hope that one day you'll grow up and realize what a colossal douchebag you've been, but I'm not terribly optimistic.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Aladain: "You know full well I was not talking about a blanket of "online behavior" as you tried to "catch" me on such a broad and simplistic term. I said then and I'm saying now that I am talking about something very specific. I'm talking about Harper for example, who are consistently mass-organizing multiple targeted, specific libelous campaigns against numerous, often promonent people for no purpose whatsoever other than to completely ruin their lives because they disagree with them while at the same time making up false stories about how they are the ones being threatened. Until some level of authority steps in on these kind of specific instances, it will only get worse."
I agree that public shaming is a terrible and destructive trend that the internet has allowed to explode. So, should some "authority" have gotten involved to put a stop to Thunderf00t's Sarkeesian videos? After all, his followers bombarded Sarkeesian with harassment after each hit piece he created, regardless of how full of shit they were.
I agree that public shaming is a terrible and destructive trend that the internet has allowed to explode. So, should some "authority" have gotten involved to put a stop to Thunderf00t's Sarkeesian videos? After all, his followers bombarded Sarkeesian with harassment after each hit piece he created, regardless of how full of shit they were.
- 17,781
- 25,897
radditsu
Silver Knight of the Realm
- 4,676
- 826
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Dick Van Dyke is more vaudevillian humor/physical comedy. The only thing absurd about him was his cockney accent in Mary Poppins.
Lithose: "I mean, some people might argue Hogan's tape is not hate speech--but according to Gawker, "revenge" porn is a kind of hate speech. (And they classified the leaks of the Fappening as revenge porn, which is to say, any pornographic material without the person's consent is revenge porn. So we can, by their standards, surmise Hogan's tape was revenge porn and hate speech)"
Respectfully request citations for:
a) Gawker claiming revenge porn is hate speech.
b) Gawker referring to the Fappening as "revenge porn".
c) Gawker claiming any pornographic material without the person's consent is revenge porn.
I only ask because the point you're trying to make (that Gawker is being hypocritical by pointing out that Reddit profits off of hate speech) seems to be built on a pretty weak foundation going by your blurb alone. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it's hard to believe without actual citations and it seems more than a little forced, if you know what I mean. I did some Googling myself and wasn't able to find any of those 3 claims, so maybe you can help me out here.
Lithose: "I mean, some people might argue Hogan's tape is not hate speech--but according to Gawker, "revenge" porn is a kind of hate speech. (And they classified the leaks of the Fappening as revenge porn, which is to say, any pornographic material without the person's consent is revenge porn. So we can, by their standards, surmise Hogan's tape was revenge porn and hate speech)"
Respectfully request citations for:
a) Gawker claiming revenge porn is hate speech.
b) Gawker referring to the Fappening as "revenge porn".
c) Gawker claiming any pornographic material without the person's consent is revenge porn.
I only ask because the point you're trying to make (that Gawker is being hypocritical by pointing out that Reddit profits off of hate speech) seems to be built on a pretty weak foundation going by your blurb alone. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it's hard to believe without actual citations and it seems more than a little forced, if you know what I mean. I did some Googling myself and wasn't able to find any of those 3 claims, so maybe you can help me out here.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,041
https://web.archive.org/web/20150426081917/http://gawker.com/that-type-of-girl-deserves-it-1639772694
Should cover A/B/C for you. They call the leaks an act of sexual violence, like an overt, physical act of violence if you looked at the pictures. Meanwhile Gawker is actually filing a FoIA request trying to prove Hogan knew he was being recorded, because they say that makes him at fault for their eventual release. Yes, you heard me tan--that line is actually being used by Gawker. Meanwhile, they also write this.
****************Notwithstanding the fact that a victim of revenge porn or a hacking created those images within the confines of an intimate relationship or for herself.......It is an exercise in victim-blaming as old as time itself and as relevant as ever. But what those of us who view these images may not understand- or are apathetic to- is the impact of these "leaks" on the young women we love.......Each time these images are leaked, it makes me feel that I have lost control over my own body and destiny. It makes me believe that merely existing as a female in this world makes me vulnerable and subject to violation........When society fails to object loudly to its sexual abuse of victims of "revenge porn" and continues to perpetrate sexual violence with every click on their naked bodies, it illuminates how we value consent in other forms of sexual abuse. **************
Now, remember what hate speech is.
**Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation**
So hate speech "attacks" gender. Posting nude Jennifer Lawrence photos is sexual violence (An attack on women--thus it is hate speech). So posting nude stolen photos or video? Hate speech (Even over violence, actually). Gawker is currently fighting to maintain a nude stolen video of a man, ergo, Gawker promotes hate speech.
Go on Tan, I'm excited to see you defend this hypocrisy. (There are tons more articles too; I know there are a few that use hate crime directly, but this was 11 months ago and there were dozens and dozens of articles, I'm not really into sifting through it all when I know you're just trolling. The only reason I did this was because I memorized some lines because I actually read it.
Should cover A/B/C for you. They call the leaks an act of sexual violence, like an overt, physical act of violence if you looked at the pictures. Meanwhile Gawker is actually filing a FoIA request trying to prove Hogan knew he was being recorded, because they say that makes him at fault for their eventual release. Yes, you heard me tan--that line is actually being used by Gawker. Meanwhile, they also write this.
****************Notwithstanding the fact that a victim of revenge porn or a hacking created those images within the confines of an intimate relationship or for herself.......It is an exercise in victim-blaming as old as time itself and as relevant as ever. But what those of us who view these images may not understand- or are apathetic to- is the impact of these "leaks" on the young women we love.......Each time these images are leaked, it makes me feel that I have lost control over my own body and destiny. It makes me believe that merely existing as a female in this world makes me vulnerable and subject to violation........When society fails to object loudly to its sexual abuse of victims of "revenge porn" and continues to perpetrate sexual violence with every click on their naked bodies, it illuminates how we value consent in other forms of sexual abuse. **************
Now, remember what hate speech is.
**Hate speech is, outside the law, speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation**
So hate speech "attacks" gender. Posting nude Jennifer Lawrence photos is sexual violence (An attack on women--thus it is hate speech). So posting nude stolen photos or video? Hate speech (Even over violence, actually). Gawker is currently fighting to maintain a nude stolen video of a man, ergo, Gawker promotes hate speech.
Go on Tan, I'm excited to see you defend this hypocrisy. (There are tons more articles too; I know there are a few that use hate crime directly, but this was 11 months ago and there were dozens and dozens of articles, I'm not really into sifting through it all when I know you're just trolling. The only reason I did this was because I memorized some lines because I actually read it.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
OK, so I read the article, and noted:
a) It did NOT claim revenge porn is hate speech.
b) It did NOT explicitly refer to the fappening as "revenge porn". It DID refer to "revenge porn" twice, both times quoted by you. The first has a clear "or hacking", implying that while the Fappening involved victims of hacking, they could be grouped thematically with victims of revenge porn. The second reinforces this by using "revenge porn" in quotes, emphasizing that the term is being used in a non-literal, more broadly encompassing sense.
c) It did NOT claim any pornographic material without the person's consent is revenge porn.
Tell you what, I'll give you point b. That leaves you with 1 out of 3, the most important point (a) still unaccounted for.
Your "remember what hate speech is" line is irrelevant. You claimed you were judging Gawker by their own metric, a metric which you apparently made up on the fly to suit your needs.
And, to be EXPLICITLY clear here, I am in no way defending Gawker. I am criticizing you. There is a difference and one doesn't necessitate the other. I know that's SUPER hard for much of the Rerolled crowd to grasp (I can't begin to count how many times my criticism of poster behavior has been interpreted as a defense of whoever they were attacking, the most recent occurrence being my reporting of Gavin's shitposts).
I thought it was super hypocritical of Gawker to publish the Hogan sex tape while chastising anyone who even looked at the Fappening's harvest. But to awkwardly force a connection between a Gawker journalist explaining his problem with Reddit profiting from hate speech and Gawker publishing the Hulk's sex tape just seems really indicative of a kind of desperate need to find anything to criticize on your part. The hypocrisy you pointed out was dependent on what you claimed was Gawker's official stance. The one article you tried to back this up with did not, in fact, back it up at all.
I mean, I understand your logic: If the Fappening was an act of sexual violence, then so was the Hulk video. If sexual violence counts as an "attack" against someone based on gender, then it is hate speech. Therefore, by publishing the Hulk's sex tape, Gawker profited off of hate speech. I get it, I just think that's a convoluted semantics game that misses every point made by the authors involved. It's a petty game of "Gotcha!" that ignores what's actually being said in order to cherry-pick phrases to "prove" a misleading point. Basically, I don't think Gawker considers either the Fappening OR the Hulk tape as being "hate speech", and I think that's where your claim of hypocrisy fails, regardless of how heavy-handed Reut Amit's "sexual violence" metaphor was.
Finally, I also think it's dishonest to take what are essentially opinion pieces written by different authors and insist that
a) These opinions reflect Gawker's "official stance"
c) They are obligated to, collectively, form a cohesive whole free of contradictions, despite reflecting the individual views and biases of the authors involved.
But I digress...
a) It did NOT claim revenge porn is hate speech.
b) It did NOT explicitly refer to the fappening as "revenge porn". It DID refer to "revenge porn" twice, both times quoted by you. The first has a clear "or hacking", implying that while the Fappening involved victims of hacking, they could be grouped thematically with victims of revenge porn. The second reinforces this by using "revenge porn" in quotes, emphasizing that the term is being used in a non-literal, more broadly encompassing sense.
c) It did NOT claim any pornographic material without the person's consent is revenge porn.
Tell you what, I'll give you point b. That leaves you with 1 out of 3, the most important point (a) still unaccounted for.
Your "remember what hate speech is" line is irrelevant. You claimed you were judging Gawker by their own metric, a metric which you apparently made up on the fly to suit your needs.
And, to be EXPLICITLY clear here, I am in no way defending Gawker. I am criticizing you. There is a difference and one doesn't necessitate the other. I know that's SUPER hard for much of the Rerolled crowd to grasp (I can't begin to count how many times my criticism of poster behavior has been interpreted as a defense of whoever they were attacking, the most recent occurrence being my reporting of Gavin's shitposts).
I thought it was super hypocritical of Gawker to publish the Hogan sex tape while chastising anyone who even looked at the Fappening's harvest. But to awkwardly force a connection between a Gawker journalist explaining his problem with Reddit profiting from hate speech and Gawker publishing the Hulk's sex tape just seems really indicative of a kind of desperate need to find anything to criticize on your part. The hypocrisy you pointed out was dependent on what you claimed was Gawker's official stance. The one article you tried to back this up with did not, in fact, back it up at all.
I mean, I understand your logic: If the Fappening was an act of sexual violence, then so was the Hulk video. If sexual violence counts as an "attack" against someone based on gender, then it is hate speech. Therefore, by publishing the Hulk's sex tape, Gawker profited off of hate speech. I get it, I just think that's a convoluted semantics game that misses every point made by the authors involved. It's a petty game of "Gotcha!" that ignores what's actually being said in order to cherry-pick phrases to "prove" a misleading point. Basically, I don't think Gawker considers either the Fappening OR the Hulk tape as being "hate speech", and I think that's where your claim of hypocrisy fails, regardless of how heavy-handed Reut Amit's "sexual violence" metaphor was.
Finally, I also think it's dishonest to take what are essentially opinion pieces written by different authors and insist that
a) These opinions reflect Gawker's "official stance"
c) They are obligated to, collectively, form a cohesive whole free of contradictions, despite reflecting the individual views and biases of the authors involved.
But I digress...
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,041
**Finally, I also think it's dishonest to take what are essentially opinion pieces written by different authors and insist that
a) These opinions reflect Gawker's "official stance"
c) They are obligated to, collectively, form a cohesive whole free of contradictions, despite reflecting the individual views and biases of the authors involved.
But I digress... **
Article originally discussed disagrees with you. (https://archive.is/hXNXY#selection-3309.173-3309.338)
****These are nice theories to debate. The practical reality is that Reddit seems to have overtaken Stormfront as the world's largest White Supremacy community.1 And thus, every page view turns into some fraction of a dollar that powers a server that hosts hate......What I know is this: Choosing to build a for-profit business around hosting such speech is a choice, and choosing whether to support that business is also a choice.**********
In short, if your server hosts hate? Which is what I would consider an act of VIOLENCE against women? (Tan doesn't..Not sure why)....Then it makes the company culpable, because the dollars from "hate" go to the same server.
Funny, though...You didn't mention the author of this piece being dishonest though...Hmm, wonder why that is, Tan. Care to explain?
(The rest of your post is the mental gymnatistic I expected--saying that overt violence and attacking women isn't "hate" LOL. And claiming because Gawker didn't say "ALL stolen porn", while they did say any images posted without consent, is somehow not the same thing...hah, Tan, you're a funny guy. Thanks, I needed this today...that perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You have a good one buddy!)
a) These opinions reflect Gawker's "official stance"
c) They are obligated to, collectively, form a cohesive whole free of contradictions, despite reflecting the individual views and biases of the authors involved.
But I digress... **
Article originally discussed disagrees with you. (https://archive.is/hXNXY#selection-3309.173-3309.338)
****These are nice theories to debate. The practical reality is that Reddit seems to have overtaken Stormfront as the world's largest White Supremacy community.1 And thus, every page view turns into some fraction of a dollar that powers a server that hosts hate......What I know is this: Choosing to build a for-profit business around hosting such speech is a choice, and choosing whether to support that business is also a choice.**********
In short, if your server hosts hate? Which is what I would consider an act of VIOLENCE against women? (Tan doesn't..Not sure why)....Then it makes the company culpable, because the dollars from "hate" go to the same server.
Funny, though...You didn't mention the author of this piece being dishonest though...Hmm, wonder why that is, Tan. Care to explain?
(The rest of your post is the mental gymnatistic I expected--saying that overt violence and attacking women isn't "hate" LOL. And claiming because Gawker didn't say "ALL stolen porn", while they did say any images posted without consent, is somehow not the same thing...hah, Tan, you're a funny guy. Thanks, I needed this today...that perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,041
Yeah, these are some of the lines too, which makes Tan's defense the best since the Moon Landing incident.
*** It means that when I spend the night with a new partner, I scan the room for hidden cameras rather than looking at my lover.....The fact that the conversation is centered on nude photos rather than on consent is a powerful reflection of how our society regards violence against women.....When society fails to object loudly to its sexual abuse of victims of "revenge porn" and continues to perpetrate sexual violence with every click on their naked bodies.***
If you don't cone sent and the photos are release? It is a sexual violation, and she states, quite clearly, it is revenge porn and it is an act of sexual violence against women to even look at it. But for Tan, she didn't say that...because reasons. hah. He really is amusing sometimes, he does try so hard.
- Status