32 minutes ago, clanofwolves said:

But if you're healthy, live your f-ing life as you see fit. In other words, "herd immunization."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01403-8

You are very likely wrong. Please stop spreading potentially very harmful misinformation.

17 hours ago, Vykk Draygo said:

I miss the good old days when someone could post an opinion and not be drug into a fight because the opinion upsets people. It really seems a lot of people are putting a ton of effort into drawing this out to make a fight. Opinions are just that, they are opinions, not facts. I don’t believe anyone here is going to change anyone else’s mind, especially when the one who posted their opinion seems to have no interest in discussing it, and honestly who could blame them, the way a ton of posters here love to stir a pot and then say see what they are saying/doing, and often times ignoring the words or actions they took in feeding the dumpster fire. Let it go and find something meaningful to discuss, or keep fanning the flames, calling people out and changing the name of the thread to instigate more issues. This has been a problem here for quite sometime now, there’s always people who must be right and are willing to go to whatever depths are necessary to call someone out. Most of us here have reading comprehension and can understand what is being spelled out on the page, no need for a guide to take us through what someone else is saying, especially when some read whatever they want to into it. Whatever happened to people being entitled to their own opinion? As to the discussion that led to this, some of us want to cower in the corner in fear for our lives and some of us want some form of normalcy to return, pick which camp you’re in and talk about plastic spaceships. We’re all getting antsy from being cooped up, there are better ways to spend your time, maybe some of us will figure that out one day, or keep being an internet warrior, trying to silence unpopular opinions and finding meaning in their beliefs (that everyone else should share BTW).

My only comment for the thread, I know what my beliefs are and I’m not interested in trying to bring you around to my way of thinking nor you bringing me around to yours.

It’s not about bringing anyone around. It’s about speaking up when you see someone leaving a loaded gun on a table.

6 hours ago, LTuser said:

"I may not agree with a **** thing you ever say, but i will fight till my last breath to allow you to say it"..

I never liked that statement and I'll explain why.

Imagine a bar fight. Just two drunk dudes getting into a fist fight.
Now, people don't just start punching each other, right? That's not how it works. It's a series of steps. First there's insults, then there's screaming. Then some shoving and finally fists start flying. It escalates, but it always starts with words.

The same exact principle applies to society as a whole.
Picture your favorite atrocity in human history. You think that stuff just happened out of the blue? Of course not. First people were just talking about it, then more people were talking about it... and then at some point it happened.

That's what I mean with "Opinions don't exist in a vacuum". Words lead to actions. Opinions don't just exist, they have an effect on the real world.

So if someone came to you and said "You know, that <favorite atrocity> thing? I think we should try that again!". Would you fight till your last breath to allow him to say it?
If you would, ok fine. Maybe then more people start thinking the same... then more... then more... then history repeats itself and... surprised Pikachu face?

So no, not all opinions should just be respected. Some deserve pushback.
The amount of pushback depends. I think, a good rule of thumb is asking yourself "What if 90% of the population believed that?". The reaction to voicing an opinion should depend on how messed up the result of that scenario would be.

Man thank godness the internet wasn't a thing for most of human history. We probably would have died out from smallpox/polio/etc. Or Europe would have had a slightly differently political makeup.

So, to clarify:

1) you don’t know what views are because I’m not interested in having that discussion right now.

2) you don’t why I might hold the views I hold because I’m not interested in having that discussion right now.

3) In the absence of something to argue about you’re prepared to set up straw men to argue against, even when I tried to correct you without being drawn into the discussion I said I didn’t want to have.

4) you’re prepared to retcon the thread title in an attempt to slander me into having the discussion I’ve repeatedly made effort to avoid having.

5) somehow this means you have the moral high ground in a fight that a) isn’t happening, and b) you don’t what it would be about if it *was* happening.

Cool.

17 minutes ago, Stay OT Leader said:

So, to clarify:

1) you don’t know what views are because I’m not interested in having that discussion right now.

2) you don’t why I might hold the views I hold because I’m not interested in having that discussion right now.

3) In the absence of something to argue about you’re prepared to set up straw men to argue against, even when I tried to correct you without being drawn into the discussion I said I didn’t want to have.

4) you’re prepared to retcon the thread title in an attempt to slander me into having the discussion I’ve repeatedly made effort to avoid having.

5) somehow this means you have the moral high ground in a fight that a) isn’t happening, and b) you don’t what it would be about if it *was* happening.

Cool.

If your defense is "I'm not talking to you anymore" could you just do that.

Ooh bold and italics at the same time. Must be serious.

On 5/1/2020 at 8:02 PM, Kyle Ren said:

Edit: this community sucks, changing the title so the mods will see it and kill this piece of **** thread

Entitled and toxic much?

This topic, man...

On 5/10/2020 at 12:23 PM, tampermagnitude said:

I think the issue here is suggesting you have a belief in something that sounds a lot like a form of Eugenics, and then not defending that point because reasons, then it sounds a lot like you have a belief in Eugenics.

Eugenics is human husbandry. Just so we're clear. Eugenics is about breeding people, not about wether the elderly should get every possible and expensive treatment to extend their life at taxpayer expense.*

*I'm not having that discussion btw, don't even try.

10 minutes ago, Cerebrawl said:

Eugenics is human husbandry. Just so we're clear. Eugenics is about breeding people, not about wether the elderly should get every possible and expensive treatment to extend their life at taxpayer expense.*

*I'm not having that discussion btw, don't even try.

Because the most important topic in this thread is to nitpick about the exact definition of a word...

It may be a dumpster fire but at least it's highlighted some of the iamverysmart sociopaths that are posting among us.

20 minutes ago, Cerebrawl said:

Entitled and toxic much?

Yes, we are getting more and more of that these days, from more and more people. It’s funny how this community sucks is often quoted by the ones who make it that way. You know what I meant Kyle Ren? Everyone seems to be applying so much attention to Stay OT Leaders comments but having no problem with the lengths and toxicity people are going to to insist that he’s wrong and their need to force their own agenda because only their opinions are right and just. But y’all do you, sounds more like the way you run a regime than have any freedoms, as long as your ok with that. Personally I’m on the side of freedom myself, it allows me to look at situations and form my own opinions as opposed to being told what I should think or what to do. Some people just have the need to be led I guess.

By the way, FFG, wake up your asleep at the wheel. I really thought this thread would have been locked this morning.

4 minutes ago, tampermagnitude said:

Because the most important topic in this thread is to nitpick about the exact definition of a word...

It may be a dumpster fire but at least it's highlighted some of the iamverysmart sociopaths that are posting among us.

The thread has become a posterchild of the toxicity of callout culture.

aaaaaaaand 50

6 minutes ago, tampermagnitude said:

Because the most important topic in this thread is to nitpick about the exact definition of a word...

It may be a dumpster fire but at least it's highlighted some of the iamverysmart sociopaths that are posting among us.

So again, doesn’t even matter if the person who is trying to have a witch hunt here is even using words correctly to instigate a fight? Gotcha, see it still goes how it has been, but they aren’t the ones bringing toxic environments here. They are just the ones pointing it out to everyone else.

45 minutes ago, Cerebrawl said:

Eugenics is human husbandry. Just so we're clear. Eugenics is about breeding people

21 minutes ago, Vykk Draygo said:

So again, doesn’t even matter if the person who is trying to have a witch hunt here is even using words correctly to instigate a fight?

That's some quality "well ackshhuaaally" mansplaining, right there, but if you're going to get linguistically and historicall nitpicky, at least don't be so wrong:

"Eugenics" may have initially meant "human husbandry" way back when, but even by the early 1900s under Galton's movement in the UK/US it was a lot more overtly insidious. It wasn't "just" about selectively breeding people, but was also very much about who shouldn't get to breed at all--grounded in a desire to deny basic human rights to groups and individuals deemed unfit or unworthy (e.g. see the classic "Eugenics Tree" image from the 1921 International Eugenics Conference, which has roots dedicated to things for mental screening and surgical sterilization of undesirables). Even initially, it identified traits (and the peoples or groups that possessed those traits) as unfit and undesirable, and sought to create a humanity without "those kind of people" (which imported all sorts of biases from its proponents, who believed firmly that some people are superior to others).

Then let's not forget that whole Nazis thing where Nazism took up the term and very much made it about the extermination of particular groups from humanity. And yet you want to play semantics in defending a term that has, for over 100 years, had a common usage that includes things like genocide, forced sterilization, and ethnic cleansing as one ingredient for a human-directed genepool? That's the thing to really want to fixate on and fight for?

The initial meaning of words change and evolve. That's how language works. "Awesome" originally meant that humbling, ineffable feeling that one felt while in the sublime presence of a god. "Awesome" hasn't meant that for a long time. Where is your linguistic outrage when Ninja Turtles use "awesome" to describe pizza and skate board tricks?

8 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

That's some quality "well ackshhuaaally" mansplaining, right there, but if you're going to get linguistically and historicall nitpicky, at least don't be so wrong:

"Eugenics" may have initially meant "human husbandry" back in the early 1900s under Galton's movement in the UK/US. But even then, it wasn't "just" about selectively breeding people, but was also very much about who shouldn't get to breed--you know, denying basic human rights to groups and individuals deemed unfit or unworthy (e.g. see the classic "Eugenics Tree" image from the 1921 International Eugenics Conference, which has roots dedicated to things for mental screening and surgical sterilization of undesirables.)

Then let's not forget that whole Nazis thing where Nazism took up the term and very much made it about the cleansing of cleansing of particular groups from humanity. And yet you want to play semantics in defending a term that has, for over 100 years, had a common usage that includes genocide as one ingredient for a human-directed genepool? That's the thing to really want to fixate on and fight for?

The initial meaning of words change and evolve. That's how language works. "Awesome" originally meant that humbling, ineffable feeling that one felt while in the sublime presence of a god. "Awesome" hasn't meant that for a long time. Where was your linguistic outrage when Ninja Turtles were using "awesome" to describe pizza and skate board tricks?

And none of that has anything to do with anything SOTL said, the thread title is just straight up libel. None of it refutes what I said either. Denying groups rights to breed is still about breeding. Cleansing people from the genepool based on characteristics is also about breeding, and also has nothing to do with anything SOTL said.

The entire mention of it in this thread has been a strawman used to attack a person.

It's straight up Godwin's law in action.

10 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

That's some quality "well ackshhuaaally" mansplaining, right there, but if you're going to get linguistically and historicall nitpicky, at least don't be so wrong:

"Eugenics" may have initially meant "human husbandry" way back when, but even by the early 1900s under Galton's movement in the UK/US it was a lot more overtly insidious. It wasn't "just" about selectively breeding people, but was also very much about who shouldn't get to breed at all--grounded in a desire to deny basic human rights to groups and individuals deemed unfit or unworthy (e.g. see the classic "Eugenics Tree" image from the 1921 International Eugenics Conference, which has roots dedicated to things for mental screening and surgical sterilization of undesirables). Even initially, it identified traits (and the peoples or groups that possessed those traits) as unfit and undesirable, and sought to create a humanity without "those kind of people" (which imported all sorts of biases from its proponents, who believed firmly that some people are superior to others).

Then let's not forget that whole Nazis thing where Nazism took up the term and very much made it about the extermination of particular groups from humanity. And yet you want to play semantics in defending a term that has, for over 100 years, had a common usage that includes things like genocide, forced sterilization, and ethnic cleansing as one ingredient for a human-directed genepool? That's the thing to really want to fixate on and fight for?

The initial meaning of words change and evolve. That's how language works. "Awesome" originally meant that humbling, ineffable feeling that one felt while in the sublime presence of a god. "Awesome" hasn't meant that for a long time. Where is your linguistic outrage when Ninja Turtles use "awesome" to describe pizza and skate board tricks?

I was going to point that out to him, but the reply you have subsequently got (A woosh followed by a lack of understanding of grey areas) was what I pretty much imagined he would have said anyway so I thought i'd save us all the time.

Yup.

8 minutes ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

That's some quality "well ackshhuaaally" mansplaining, right there, but if you're going to get linguistically and historicall nitpicky, at least don't be so wrong:

"Eugenics" may have initially meant "human husbandry" back in the early 1900s under Galton's movement in the UK/US. But even then, it wasn't "just" about selectively breeding people, but was also very much about who shouldn't get to breed--you know, denying basic human rights to groups and individuals deemed unfit or unworthy (e.g. see the classic "Eugenics Tree" image from the 1921 International Eugenics Conference, which has roots dedicated to things for mental screening and surgical sterilization of undesirables.)

Then let's not forget that whole Nazis thing where Nazism took up the term and very much made it about the cleansing of cleansing of particular groups from humanity. And yet you want to play semantics in defending a term that has, for over 100 years, had a common usage that includes genocide as one ingredient for a human-directed genepool? That's the thing to really want to fixate on and fight for?

The initial meaning of words change and evolve. That's how language works. "Awesome" originally meant that humbling, ineffable feeling that one felt while in the sublime presence of a god. "Awesome" hasn't meant that for a long time. Where was your linguistic outrage when Ninja Turtles were using "awesome" to describe pizza and skate board tricks?

So maybe you can point out who actually brought it into the discussion, it sure as **** wasn’t the one who is being accused of it. It was brought up and applied to someone else’s comment and then taken as fact by many others here. It’s the same as it’s been for awhile, I guess we can see who is getting stir crazy from the quarantine, hint: it’s the ones with nothing better to occupy their time than starting a good old witch hunt to occupy their time. And then of course they get offended when their opinions aren’t taken as fact by all the people in an online chat room and claim a toxic environment after they are the ones that turned it toxic in the first place. I’m entitled to my opinion, others are entitled to their opinions as well but when you start attacking people for their opinions.....we’ll i guess that sounds more like the Nazism you speak of and doesn’t sound like a place I want to live. All the people here who are attacking people for their beliefs and opinions sounds kinda like an evil regime to me.

41 minutes ago, Cerebrawl said:

The thread has become a posterchild of the toxicity of callout culture.

“I should be able to treat people like animals and encourage others to do so without any kind of social pushback at all.”

25 minutes ago, Cerebrawl said:

It's straight up Godwin's law in action.

Euthanasia of the old and infirm was a central policy of the 3rd Reich.

Nobody is reaching very far when he’s straightup advocating for their policies, lol.

1 minute ago, Vykk Draygo said:

So maybe you can point out who actually brought it into the discussion, it sure as **** wasn’t the one who is being accused of it. It was brought up and applied to someone else’s comment and then taken as fact by many others here. It’s the same as it’s been for awhile, I guess we can see who is getting stir crazy from the quarantine, hint: it’s the ones with nothing better to occupy their time than starting a good old witch hunt to occupy their time. And then of course they get offended when their opinions aren’t taken as fact by all the people in an online chat room and claim a toxic environment after they are the ones that turned it toxic in the first place. I’m entitled to my opinion, others are entitled to their opinions as well but when you start attacking people for their opinions.....we’ll i guess that sounds more like the Nazism you speak of and doesn’t sound like a place I want to live. All the people here who are attacking people for their beliefs and opinions sounds kinda like an evil regime to me.

Remember guys, the REAL scandal is not someone musing about whether Grandma shouldn't be so selfish and just die already. It's the people being so terribly mean to that guy!

Back to our liberal agenda! 😂

Just now, TasteTheRainbow said:

“I should be able to treat people like animals and encourage others to do so without any kind of social pushback at all.”

But it’s funny all the people who ARE attacking are the ones who think they are just giving social pushback. What was said was a small comment that was taken by others to mean exactly what they wanted it to mean. Are you going to the local book burning afterwards as well? After all some of those things have some real agendas and actually spell it out so you are sure you know what it means, unlike in this case here.

1 minute ago, Naerytar said:

Remember guys, the REAL scandal is not someone musing about whether Grandma shouldn't be so selfish and just die already. It's the people being so terribly mean to that guy!

Back to our liberal agenda! 😂

Could you be bothered to actually quote where he said grandma should die? I’ve seen that posted a few times now, but not by the one everybody wants to burn at the stake for saying it.