I'm sure smartass apologists will be by shortly to start some shit.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

More information please. Links?

http://videosift.com/member/bobknight33

Oh .. the guy who said no wonder black people are called niggers .. yes .. let's come to his defense. Looking forward to it.

Ugh! You downvoted my comment! I AM CRUSHED! If only I had some sort of histrionics disorder to help me make sense of it all.

>> ^burdturgler:

Oh .. the guy who said no wonder black people are called niggers .. yes .. let's come to his defense. Looking forward to it.


The comment itself isn't terrible enough for a ban, IMO.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^burdturgler:
Oh .. the guy who said no wonder black people are called niggers .. yes .. let's come to his defense. Looking forward to it.

The comment itself isn't terrible enough for a ban, IMO.


How sad that must be for you.

>> ^burdturgler:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^burdturgler:
Oh .. the guy who said no wonder black people are called niggers .. yes .. let's come to his defense. Looking forward to it.

The comment itself isn't terrible enough for a ban, IMO.

How sad that must be for you.


Not as sad as your pettiness to delete a video so you could invoke dead: http://videosift.com/video/The-Story-of-Maceo-Janes-Addiction?loadcomm=1#comment-1234124

Want a tissue, sir?

So what's your fucking point? You want to siftquisition me because I deleted the maceo sift you were so ungrateful for? Why should I host a sift for someone who constantly is fucking with me?

>> ^burdturgler:

So what's your fucking point? You want to siftquisition me because I deleted the maceo sift you were so ungrateful for? Why should I host a sift for someone who constantly is fucking with me?


If every nice thing we do for each other can easily be pulled over disagreements, then what's the point of doing nice things in the first place?

Burdy, I don't want you to get into trouble. I want us to stop banning people over such petty differences.

Well blanfist, I appreciate what you're saying but I obviously don't think it was petty or I would not have banned him.

If you're ban happy and you know it, clap your hands.
*CLAP CLAP*
If you're ban happy and you know it, clap your hands.
*CLAP CLAP*
If you're ban happy and you know it,
And you wonder why blacks are still call the n word,
gorillaman has been InstaBanned
*CLAP CLAP*

>> ^gorillaman:

If you're ban happy and you know it, clap your hands.
CLAP CLAP
If you're ban happy and you know it, clap your hands.
CLAP CLAP
If you're ban happy and you know it,
And you wonder why blacks are still call the n word,
gorillaman has been InstaBanned
CLAP CLAP


Right .. and as usual .. racism is a joke. No one should be offended. If you see a bunch of black guys robbing a store well of course .. no wonder they're called niggers. That's how niggers are. That's what niggers do. Right? Nothing racist about it, yeah?

>> ^burdturgler:

Well blanfist, I appreciate what you're saying but I obviously don't think it was petty or I would not have banned him.


I was calling you killing the video on DailyMotion petty. I don't think your reaction to racism is petty in the least. We should be angry about it if it bothers us, but that doesn't mean what bk did was a bannable offense.

I guess that will go on the great long list of shit that you and I disagree about. I'm honestly offended that you're NOT offended. Seriously. Not that it matters to you. It's not like I'm going to explain anything to you or convince you of why it was such a horribly blatantly racist thing to say. I don't even think that's possible. I don't think you even give a shit. Let anyone say anything and the free market decides right?

I banned him. If I see that shit again, I'll ban it again. If you would prefer more racism here, feel free to make that case.

I have never enjoyed bobknight's comments. I don't like his politics. I don't like his point of view. And he has a right to say them.

But not that. I thought it was a horrible thing to write. Horribly racist. Not just bad taste horrible. Sick to my stomach, this is unacceptable horrible. I don't want to ever look at it horrible.

I was glad to see he had been banned. Not for the multitude of things he has written, but just that one.

Having said all that....

I hadn't realized he had been permanently banned. That I'm not comfortable with. Hobbling so he can't comment? Sure. But even that shouldn't be permanent.

Not without a conversation. There has to be a conversation.

@burdturgler, you know that I support you. However, there needs to be a conversation. Unless there has been conversation in the past? Was it ever said explicitly "Say it again, you are out, no reprieve"?

I know you are angry. However, that doesn't give you license to lash out in your anger when you feel hurt. That ain't cool. I know it has been a bad day for you -- I have seen evidence of that in a couple of different places. I'm not saying you shouldn't be angry. I'm not telling you to have a tougher skin. I think that is bullshit. However, it isn't cool to hurt others when you have been hurt. It just isn't.

I have one more thing to say, but I want it to be all by itself.

We need a bunch of people to come to this sift talk and say, without fucking it up with other issues you might have on other topics --

Blatant ugly racism is unacceptable on the Sift.

Well fuck all that. I'm sorry, yeah I really am pretty pissed off about this ..

He couldn't be hobbled because he wasn't starred. That's how it works. Maybe he should have participated in the community and actually sifted videos here if he wanted the privilege of being hobbled. So no, there doesn't need to be any conversation for me to ban a non-starred member who can not be hobbled when he throws down blatantly racist speech in comments.

>> ^bareboards2:

I have never enjoyed bobknight's comments. I don't like his politics. I don't like his point of view. And he has a right to say them.
But not that. I thought it was a horrible thing to write. Horribly racist. Not just bad taste horrible. Sick to my stomach, this is unacceptable horrible. I don't want to ever look at it horrible.
I was glad to see he had been banned. Not for the multitude of things he has written, but just that one.
Having said all that....
I hadn't realized he had been permanently banned. That I'm not comfortable with. Hobbling so he can't comment? Sure. But even that shouldn't be permanent.
Not without a conversation. There has to be a conversation.
@burdturgler, you know that I support you. However, there needs to be a conversation. Unless there has been conversation in the past? Was it ever said explicitly "Say it again, you are out, no reprieve"?
I know you are angry. However, that doesn't give you license to lash out in your anger when you feel hurt. That ain't cool. I know it has been a bad day for you -- I have seen evidence of that in a couple of different places. I'm not saying you shouldn't be angry. I'm not telling you to have a tougher skin. I think that is bullshit. However, it isn't cool to hurt others when you have been hurt. It just isn't.
I have one more thing to say, but I want it to be all by itself.

All I can say is, if I see another comment like "And you wonder why blacks are still called niggers" I will instaban that shit every time I see it. So if that's a problem, might as well ban me right now.

Ironically, I would have called a siftquisition, so the community could decide. But no, the community thought that siftquisitions were a bad idea.

bobknights a dick and all to be sure.

on one hand, i'm not big fan of banning. and think trolls are better left on ignore. getting banned from videosift doesn't make anyone less of a racist trolling dick wad.

on the other hand, that guys a dick and blatantly racist speech is technically prohibited by site rules.

so.. /me meh

this just makes me think about what chris hedges says about how we can only tolerate so much intolerance.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's definitely racist and against the guidelines. If BK was a "P" it would be grounds for instant banishment - however, I think we should give longstanding members either a temporary suspension or warning depending on the infraction - before permanent banishment. In this case, I think a warning is in order, which I'm going to rescind BK's banishment to. Thanks.

Cheers, looking forward to more subtle racism in the future. Maybe we can break out the "spook" jokes. Those were good for a laugh.

Seems like that was bad enough for a one or two week time out, to me.

However, knowing that there will not be a repeat from that source is very comforting to me.

not sure if my two pence means jack shit being between a P and a star (dunno what that makes me....a blank?) but.....if the knee jerk reaction to an arguably perceivable racist remark is to ban, no ifs, ands, or buts, its not really gonna get anyone anywhere. Racism, while not as overt as it was in the early 19th century or the mid 20th century, is still very much a volatile issue raising many different emotions.

personally i feel it helps to understand why certain remarks or their context offends us and why we feel it is racist. for the statement in question "and people wonder why blah blah blah", is it offensive to you because he said nigger? is it offensive because he made a reference to black people as being niggers? is it offensive not by its diction but by how cavalier he seemed to throw racially sensitive words around such as nigger?

i mean everyone is gonna take it differently. but if we dont understand why certain words or phrases or syntax's are offensive to us, especially concerning racial content, then what are we doing exactly?

the "n word" in particular is an extremely sensitive word to many many people. but its use and the different reactions of its use depending on the color of the person using it does paint a strange picture of race relations in society in my eyes. Its a word that can simultaneously invoke humor and vitriol but if we just ignore it, and its impact, and just stick our fingers in our ear whenever it us uttered, nothing is gonna change.

im kind of reminded of Dave Chappelle's "Niggar Family" sketch. I can only speculate that the sketch serves to remove the controversy of the word itself making it more or less a trivial utterance to raise awareness to the why: why is this word so offensive? why is it only offensive in certain contexts? why is it only offensive if nonblacks say it?

personally i feel two ways about the word. 1) everyone should say it all the damn time, or 2) no one should say it at all

Here's the racist's mindset -- I know this, because I recently spent an appalling three days with my racist uncle in Oklahoma:

If a black person does something bad, then all black people are presumed to be bad. If a white person does something bad, then it is just a white person doing something bad.

When bobk made his comment, he was looking at a group of law breakers and extrapolated their behavior onto an entire population, based on the color of their skin, using a word that has been employed by whites to dehumanize and denigrate.

What bobk said was probably the most deeply offensive racist comment I have read here on the Sift. The fact that this is being discussed as an intellectual word problem really bothers me, @smooman. The fact that he didn't get banned for a week or two really bothers me, @dag.

And I am grateful that the line has been drawn in the sand, @bobknight33. Say anything like this again, and you are permanently barred from this site.

Im curious tho if your mind would change if bk was black

Internalized racism is still racism.

It is essentially Stockholm Syndrome, @smooman.

we'd at least agree on that then

there are some things in life that will always remain constant.
the sky is blue.
the sun will rise..
and burdy will always get his panties tied in a knot about something or other that offended his tender sensibilities.
why?
because they are tender.
and yeah..BK could be a flaming dickwad but he was OUR flaming dickwad.
why ban when you can delve into utter humiliation?
more effective and faaar more entertaining.
banning is BOOORING.

It would not change my mind. Whatever the source, the sift should not by default become place of hostility for black (or asian, or white, or muslim, or latino, et al.) people by bigots who hide behind "free speech" to spread hate speech. This is not stormfront.

Regardless if we can see the logic in it or reason behind it, most African Americans would be highly offended by BK's remark; also by so many sifters jumping up to defend that putrid behavior. Unless we want a site where only white people congregate and feel comfortable, that type of hate speech should be highly regulated, if not prohibited.

I wonder would people be so tolerant and supportive of BK if he spouted some crazy anti-semetic drivel. What if snide or subtle anti-semetic comments popped up all the time? Would we feel comfortable on this site? Burd's point is that that is what is happening wrt anti-black speech.

But really, I think the biggest target of bigotry on the sift is muslims. We have whole sets of videos depricating muslims under the excuse of being anti-religion. But the tenor of the anti-muslim comments and videos is much more debased than the anti-christian ones. Christians on this site are regularly presented as buffoons; but muslims are regularly characterized as dirty, dangerous animals. Look at the roster of videos if you don't believe me. Compared to this, the anti-black bigots are just the icing on the shit cake.


>> ^smooman:
Im curious tho if your mind would change if bk was black

whoa whoa whoa, i am most certainly not defending what bk said in the least! All I am saying is context is everything

Hi, I get that you and others are not defending the content of BKs speech.

Context? How much context do you need? Given the poster's history, and the video in question, there is more than enough context to see this was hate speech. Even if you take the word "nigger" out, and keep BK's intent, it would still rise to that level. "Nigger" is not what makes BK's statement egregious.


>> ^smooman:
whoa whoa whoa, i am most certainly not defending what bk said in the least! All I am saying is context is everything

No comments here about rottenseed's recent ban attempt? Doesn't his ban attempt count?

burdturgler had every right to pull out the ban hammer. That statement is disgusting and has no place on this site, let alone this decade. Who still says shit like that? It's 2011 for Cthulhu's sake.

Also, @blankfist, do you really not see the difference between "nigger" and "cracker"? I sense you do, but if not, I'd be more than happy to elaborate. Also, trying to make this into some kind of political argument is beyond lame. Shame on you. You should know better.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

burdturgler had every right to pull out the ban hammer. That statement is disgusting and has no place on this site, let alone this decade. Who still says shit like that? It's 2011 for Cthulhu's sake.
Also, @blankfist, do you really not see the difference between "nigger" and "cracker"? I sense you do, but if not, I'd be more than happy to elaborate. Also, trying to make this into some kind of political argument is beyond lame. Shame on you. You should know better.


Whatever, selfrighteousfuturetoday. What he said wasn't that egregious. And certainly not worth a ban. I stand by that.

It doesn't matter what blankie thinks, dft. It only matters what dag thinks.

The line has been drawn. bobknight33 crosses it again, and he is gone.

Blankie thinks it is all so very okay, and isn't worth a ban, and all is hunky dory, right? And so he says something similar, because there is nothing wrong with what bobk said, in his opinion. What happens next? He'll get a similar warning, right @dag? And he will be banned [edit] if he does it again.

It's okay that he thinks it is fine. He can think what he likes. He just can't say it.

Blankie is like the bad guy in the new X Men movie, don't you think? He gets more power the more energy you throw in his direction.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

burdturgler had every right to pull out the ban hammer. That statement is disgusting and has no place on this site, let alone this decade. Who still says shit like that? It's 2011 for Cthulhu's sake.
Also, @blankfist, do you really not see the difference between "nigger" and "cracker"? I sense you do, but if not, I'd be more than happy to elaborate. Also, trying to make this into some kind of political argument is beyond lame. Shame on you. You should know better.

Look at me, I'm a hall monitor, and I like to invoke @dag @dag @dag. Oh teacher! Oh teacher! Did you see that someone over here hasn't done their homework, teacher?!

Hey @bareboards2, I think bk33 did cross the line. I just don't think we're promoting a good community by perma-banning people every week who've been longstanding members, especially on their first offense. I think we need to take a step back from the central planning and recognize that the Sift is a generally good site with generally good people. If you want to see rampant racist comments please go check out YT.

If this was a bannable offense then surely it must be a perma-bannable offense to choose the n-word as your charter subdomain. Huh, burd?

Yep! That's me! The hall monitor.

Glad to know that you think bk33 crossed the line. That wasn't clear before.

I completely agree with you that this rash of banning has been unpleasant. I completely agree with you that ban-hammering without discussion is wrong and destructive of a sense of good community.

What you might not know is how much I have done to un-ban folks and try to prevent bans from happening. Concrete action, done privately. And not just for the privileged elite who have been around for awhile -- I have been trying to help the sift be more welcoming towards noobies.

Where we disagree is about taking concrete action to make the sift a safe(r) place for everyone. You have a wonderfully thick skin when it comes to rough and tumble games, blankie. It is part of your charm and your humor.

But just because it is fun for you, that doesn't mean the rest of us are having such a grand old time. There needs to be space for everyone. This means some of us have to work on getting a tougher skin. Some of us need to back off from the trolling when it becomes clear that a line has been crossed and things have suddenly become ugly.

TL DR: We all have to adjust to each other, right? Isn't that what a good community does?



>> ^blankfist:

Look at me, I'm a hall monitor, and I like to invoke . Oh teacher! Oh teacher! Did you see that someone over here hasn't done their homework, teacher?!
Hey @bareboards2, I think bk33 did cross the line. I just don't think we're promoting a good community by perma-banning people every week who've been longstanding members, especially on their first offense. I think we need to take a step back from the central planning and recognize that the Sift is a generally good site with generally good people. If you want to see rampant racist comments please go check out YT.

What do you mean "safer"? Are we worried about physical violence all of a sudden? I think we've already built a good community by example, and we need to hold to it by doing much less to improve it by way of banning or drawing lines in the sand.

When we do that, we create boundary pushers and a litigious community. That always makes things more tedious than helpful. If someone does something really bad, we'll all know it - calling someone the n word directly, for instance. But growing a bit of thicker skin is preferable in these mildly offensive situations.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Stay after class, I'm giving you both a paddling. I do want to disagree, @bareboards2 that it only matters what I think. In a Siftquisition-free Sift, I do act as a final decision maker at times - but I hope that members don't think that only my judgement matters.

Mea culpa, @dag. I phrased that quite badly.

I just meant that you had already passed judgment on the bk33 comment, and you had already decided that it had gone too far.

This is a great example of when we need you, I think. Here we have two strong opinions -- dft, turd and I think that bk33 went way way too far. Blankie is only mildly offended even now. None of us are going to be changing our minds. So we have to call Solomon, yes? Someone has to decide. That is all I meant.

Mea culpa.

@dag @dag @dag

Compared to other racial groups, a disproportionately high percentage of melanin-enhanced Americans engage in criminal behavior, perhaps due to a failed cultural model that rejects the values of education, marriage and respect for just laws.

Why can't everyone be cool about things, like me and my other white, middle class hetero male friends, who point fingers at minority groups on the internet?

>> ^quantumushroom:

Compared to other racial groups, a disproportionately high percentage of melanin-enhanced Americans engage in criminal behavior, perhaps due to a failed cultural model that rejects the values of education, marriage and respect for just laws.


That's racist.

Everyone who makes sweeping generalizations are dbags.

>> ^blankfist:

What do you mean "safer"? Are we worried about physical violence all of a sudden? I think we've already built a good community by example, and we need to hold to it by doing much less to improve it by way of banning or drawing lines in the sand.
When we do that, we create boundary pushers and a litigious community. That always makes things more tedious than helpful. If someone does something really bad, we'll all know it - calling someone the n word directly, for instance. But growing a bit of thicker skin is preferable in these mildly offensive situations.


So what about people who don't have thick skin, and don't want to have to grow it to participate in VideoSift's community?

Not to mention, aren't we talking about racist comments? Why should anyone have to be "thick skinned" about that?

Are you displeased by the facts? I don't blame you.

Bill Cosby said as much.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Compared to other racial groups, a disproportionately high percentage of melanin-enhanced Americans engage in criminal behavior, perhaps due to a failed cultural model that rejects the values of education, marriage and respect for just laws.

That's racist.

>> ^NetRunner:

So what about people who don't have thick skin, and don't want to have to grow it to participate in VideoSift's community?
Not to mention, aren't we talking about racist comments? Why should anyone have to be "thick skinned" about that?

Last I checked we had a pretty tolerant community here. You beg to differ? You mean to tell me one relatively benign comment from some assclown is enough to make this place a danger for those without thick skin?

We have a tolerant community -- for racial slurs against and a hostile environment against certain groups. A few of us want to discourage that, while others don't mind if that behavior flourishes.

I thought you said the original statement went over the line. Now in the same thread, you say its a benign comment. Which is it?

And what makes you the arbiter of what should and should not offend someone? What benchmark do you use to determine what goes over the line. Also, if you really think that a comment which haphazardly disparages a whole group is OK, what anti-black statement would be over the line.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
So what about people who don't have thick skin, and don't want to have to grow it to participate in VideoSift's community?
Not to mention, aren't we talking about racist comments? Why should anyone have to be "thick skinned" about that?

Last I checked we had a pretty tolerant community here. You beg to differ? You mean to tell me one relatively benign comment from some assclown is enough to make this place a danger for those without thick skin?

>> ^longde:

We have a tolerant community -- for racial slurs against and a hostile environment against certain groups. A few of us want to discourage that, while others don't mind if that behavior flourishes.
I thought you said the original statement went over the line. Now in the same thread, you say its a benign comment. Which is it?
And what makes you the arbiter of what should and should not offend someone? What benchmark do you use to determine what goes over the line. Also, if you really think that a comment which haphazardly disparages a whole group is OK, what anti-black statement would be over the line.

No one on here wants the racial comments to "flourish". Let's scale back the hyperbole a touch, please.

His comment was relatively benign. I see that there's probably some racism in his heart, which I don't condone, but that doesn't mean I want to see him banned over it.

You seem to want some hard and fast rules. But then how would you enforce those? No suggestion of racism or you're banned? No alluding to racist speech? Don't say "n word" because it's the same as "n***er"? What would make you the arbiter of what is enforced as "hostile" and what isn't? Would you tolerate bans of people calling rich white people greedy or honkeys? Or is it that some racism is tolerated?

We have a great community here, and we've been surprisingly tolerant and civil over the past five years, so let's not go mucking that up by finding excuses to run unpopular members off the site.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
So what about people who don't have thick skin, and don't want to have to grow it to participate in VideoSift's community?
Not to mention, aren't we talking about racist comments? Why should anyone have to be "thick skinned" about that?

Last I checked we had a pretty tolerant community here. You beg to differ? You mean to tell me one relatively benign comment from some assclown is enough to make this place a danger for those without thick skin?


Not the comment itself, but the backlash that occurs against people who take action in response to it.

Anytime anyone says they're offended by something, they get a huge target on their back, and have to put up with a tremendous amount of derision aimed at them.

I'm cool with questioning whether an instaban is an appropriate punishment for this particular infraction. I don't think a permanent ban is warranted, but I do think comments like that should result in something more serious than a mere response in comments.

Your comments indicate that your issue isn't just that the punishment is too severe, but that you object to the notion that racist speech should result in any kind of punishment at all. You even say nobody should've even taken offense in the first place. Then you go so far as to cast bobknight as the victim of some sort of conspiracy to silence political opposition, since obviously nobody could or should've really been offended!

This is nuts, and it happens anytime anyone offends someone else deeply enough for them to take action rather than just let it slide.

If this really was "liberalsift" there'd be some sort of consensus that being sensitive is a positive trait, and not one we should try to beat out of people with our policies and social conventions...

*citation needed*

>> ^longde:

[...]But really, I think the biggest target of bigotry on the sift is muslims. We have whole sets of videos depricating muslims under the excuse of being anti-religion. But the tenor of the anti-muslim comments and videos is much more debased than the anti-christian ones. Christians on this site are regularly presented as buffoons; but muslims are regularly characterized as dirty, dangerous animals. Look at the roster of videos if you don't believe me. Compared to this, the anti-black bigots are just the icing on the shit cake.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Are you displeased by the facts? I don't blame you.
Bill Cosby said as much.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Compared to other racial groups, a disproportionately high percentage of melanin-enhanced Americans engage in criminal behavior, perhaps due to a failed cultural model that rejects the values of education, marriage and respect for just laws.

That's racist.



Incidentally, there's a pretty big gap between what you said, and what Bill Cosby said.

What Bill Cosby said was basically "you need to do more as parents if you don't want your kids going to jail, it's not just white bigotry at fault".

What you said was promoting a stereotype about "melanin-enhancing Americans", and using Bill Cosby's comments as some sort of justification.

It's true that Cosby's comments imply that there's some truth to the stereotype, but the problem with stereotypes has nothing to do with whether they're true or not, it's about their prevalence causing people to prejudge others on the basis of a stereotype, even though none of them are true for 100% of the group they describe.

Racism comes from all colors and all different walks of life. If someone is racist, it doesn't necessarily make their opinion invalid. For me personally, I don't mind a little bit of racism permeating the sift. It is a reflection of the real world, not some perfect Siftopia.

I have friends who are racist. Hell my own father and grandfather are racist. Does that mean I should remove them from my life because they would be uncomfortable with me dating a black woman? I'm just not sure that would be the right response.

But maybe some of you feel that way. It's a personal matter. That's just my two cents. It certainly doesn't mean that I think some people shouldn't be banned for taking it too far. Especially anyone who would attempt to incite violence against any particular race.

let me clarify a few things:

-I didn't say you wanted the comments to flourish; I don't think you do. I'm saying I don't think you would mind or care if they did. I see you as indifferent.
-I never said or advocated a permaban for people making racist or hate statements. I do think such statements should be prohibited; there are many ways to do so, just like we prohibit other things on the sift.
-We have to use some judgement, but hate or racist statements against any race should be off-limits. I also see the distinction about statements which are about race and racist statements. What stood out for me in BKs comment:
*The tone of the comment; I didn't read any sarcasm, irony or jest in the comment; and BK didn't clarify that there was any.
*The blanket, non-factual statement which cast all members of the race in an extremely negative light. Let me put it this way: If BK had said "BurdT, this is why people call you nigger" I think we agree that would be bad, since it targets BurdT specifically due to his race. However, BKs statement is much worse, because rather than target BurdT only, he is slurring any and all black people who will read the thread. No qualifiers; these people on the video are scum, so you of the incidental same ethnic group are also scum. WTF
*Using "nigger" was the least of it, IMO; but clearly he was using it its most derogatory way

Yes, I can ignore BK, but what about new potential black sifters? Shouldn't the sift be a welcoming place to all? When statement like that are not called out and dealt with, it implies acceptance to those unfamiliar with the sift.

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^longde:
We have a tolerant community -- for racial slurs against and a hostile environment against certain groups. A few of us want to discourage that, while others don't mind if that behavior flourishes.
I thought you said the original statement went over the line. Now in the same thread, you say its a benign comment. Which is it?
And what makes you the arbiter of what should and should not offend someone? What benchmark do you use to determine what goes over the line. Also, if you really think that a comment which haphazardly disparages a whole group is OK, what anti-black statement would be over the line.
No one on here wants the racial comments to "flourish". Let's scale back the hyperbole a touch, please.
His comment was relatively benign. I see that there's probably some racism in his heart, which I don't condone, but that doesn't mean I want to see him banned over it.
You seem to want some hard and fast rules. But then how would you enforce those? No suggestion of racism or you're banned? No alluding to racist speech? Don't say "n word" because it's the same as "n er"? What would make you the arbiter of what is enforced as "hostile" and what isn't? Would you tolerate bans of people calling rich white people greedy or honkeys? Or is it that some racism is tolerated?
We have a great community here, and we've been surprisingly tolerant and civil over the past five years, so let's not go mucking that up by finding excuses to run unpopular members off the site.

Regarding African Americans/blacks/whatever. It can easily be shown from a sociological perspective that they are unfairly targeted by law enforcement. It's not an opinion really but a fact. And might I point out, one that doesn't even take into account the predominantly white, white-collar criminals that cause things like our current financial crisis, and yet are never prosecuted, even without full protection of the law.

People stealing purses, selling drugs and pimping women are not the cause of society's ills. They are the effect.

I don't have time to catalog all the videos that do so. Maybe when I have a free weekend, I will list 5 terrible ones. >> ^hpqp:
citation needed
>> ^longde:
[...]But really, I think the biggest target of bigotry on the sift is muslims. We have whole sets of videos depricating muslims under the excuse of being anti-religion. But the tenor of the anti-muslim comments and videos is much more debased than the anti-christian ones. Christians on this site are regularly presented as buffoons; but muslims are regularly characterized as dirty, dangerous animals. Look at the roster of videos if you don't believe me. Compared to this, the anti-black bigots are just the icing on the shit cake.

>> ^longde:

let me clarify a few things:
-I didn't say you wanted the comments to flourish; I don't think you do. I'm saying I don't think you would mind or care if they did. I see you as indifferent.
-I never said or advocated a permaban for people making racist or hate statements. I do think such statements should be prohibited; there are many ways to do so, just like we prohibit other things on the sift.
-We have to use some judgement, but hate or racist statements against any race should be off-limits. I also see the distinction about statements which are about race and racist statements. What stood out for me in BKs comment:
The tone of the comment; I didn't read any sarcasm, irony or jest in the comment; and BK didn't clarify that there was any.
The blanket, non-factual statement which cast all members of the race in an extremely negative light. Let me put it this way: If BK had said "BurdT, this is why people call you nigger" I think we agree that would be bad, since it targets BurdT specifically due to his race. However, BKs statement is much worse, because rather than target BurdT only, he is slurring any and all black people who will read the thread. No qualifiers; these people on the video are scum, so you of the incidental same ethnic group are also scum. WTF
Using "nigger" was the least of it, IMO; but clearly he was using it its most derogatory way
Yes, I can ignore BK, but what about new potential black sifters? Shouldn't the sift be a welcoming place to all? When statement like that are not called out and dealt with, it implies acceptance to those unfamiliar with the sift.


I'm not indifferent to it. I don't want people being hostile toward a group of people based on things they cannot help. It's one thing to make light of it, but to seriously hate and then vehemently target people is another thing altogether. And luckily we don't have that here on the Sift. Let's be thankful.

I also didn't read any sarcasm in BK33's comment. Like I said, I think he meant it to be racist. I don't want us policing behavior on this site. Let me qualify that statement. I don't mean I want people going around attacking people of a different color; I simply think we cannot police matters of the heart, and if we try we'll probably experience more bad behavior than good. What he said was racist. No doubt. I don't condone what he said. Still, his comment is to a hateful, hostile comment what thumping someone on the ear is to a knife wound.

To your point, I agree if he called burdy the n word, that would be something entirely different than what we have here. If BK33 called burdy that, I'd ban him myself. You and I will have to disagree that calling all black people the n word is worse, because I just see that as the absurdity of collectivizing race. Though if BK33 went around calling all black people "n***ers" on here, then I'd also ban him on the spot. That's not what he did with his comment, though. He made a generalized absurd comment that was a thump on the ear, not a knife wound.

Not to sidetrack the conversation but campi also makes a good point above: why is burdy exempt from not using the word? It was his subdomain at one point if you remember?

>> ^NetRunner:

Not the comment itself, but the backlash that occurs against people who take action in response to it.
Anytime anyone says they're offended by something, they get a huge target on their back, and have to put up with a tremendous amount of derision aimed at them.
I'm cool with questioning whether an instaban is an appropriate punishment for this particular infraction. I don't think a permanent ban is warranted (and I don't, but I do think comments like that should result in something more serious than a mere response in comments.
Your comments indicate that your issue isn't just that the punishment is too severe, but that you object to the notion that racist speech should result in any kind of punishment at all. You even say nobody should've even taken offense in the first place. Then you go so far as to cast bobknight as the victim of some sort of conspiracy to silence political opposition, since obviously nobody could or should've really been offended!
This is nuts, and it happens anytime anyone offends someone else deeply enough for them to take action rather than just let it slide.
If this really was "liberalsift" there'd be some sort of consensus that being sensitive is a positive trait, and not one we should try to beat out of people with our policies and social conventions...


What backlash? You mean this discussion on my personal blog? Oh the poor people who are forced to read my blog and have zero other places to go on the internet.

And this: "Anytime anyone says they're offended by something, they get a huge target on their back, and have to put up with a tremendous amount of derision aimed at them."

Hilarious. Yes, there's a real movement on here to target people. I think I remember that time when bk33 rounded up all the black people and gassed them. What a tactless exaggeration, NR. I've been attacked personally for my difference of political beliefs, yet you don't hear me crying foul every damn time someone calls me a libertard or blankfuck or whatever. Sometimes I feel targeted by you, dft, and some other prominent Sifters, but I'm not going to hop on a soapbox and spin a yarn how I'm a victim. That would be disingenuous.

The bottom line is this. Bk33's comment was luke warm racism. I understand some people could've been really offended, and apparently that was the case, but some people are offended when I order meat or wear leather or use the Christian God's name in vain. I think we all need to relax and move on.

I do personally deal with racism in my family. My father knows that if he uses the n word in my presence, I will warn him that I will leave the room if he says it again. So he doesn't.

Same thing here, except bobk is warned that the door will be locked to him if he continues.

Except for Burd, nobody thinks bobk should have been permabanned, do they? So can we drop that argument? Burd has told me that he has once again left the Sift because of the tolerance for racism here, so you are arguing with no one, blankie.

So.... Can we now discuss whether dag is correct to draw the line in the sand, blankie? We all agree a permaban is not appropriate. But what about dag's line in the sand?

You think that bobk's comment is benign, along with some others who agree with you. You know that many others do not see it as benign, they see it as destructive.

Dag has announced how he feels -- do it again, and you are gone.

Are you okay with what the community has settled on, blankie? Community seems to be very important to you. And this is your Sift blog, so I am directing this question to you, rather than generally. Are you okay with where we ended up?


>> ^Ryjkyj:

I have friends who are racist. Hell my own father and grandfather are racist. Does that mean I should remove them from my life because they would be uncomfortable with me dating a black woman?

I think this is my favourite part of this conversation, from Blankfist: "I think I remember that time when bk33 rounded up all the black people and gassed them. What a tactless exaggeration, NR."

Evoking race hate and Nazism in accusing someone of making a tactless exaggeration. You just don't see that very often.

I also like the idea that someone who is not especially offended by racism can define for us an objective extent of racism in a statement, and conclude it to be lukewarm as a bottom line.

Fabulous stuff.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Compared to other racial groups, a disproportionately high percentage of melanin-enhanced Americans engage in criminal behavior, perhaps due to a failed cultural model that rejects the values of education, marriage and respect for just laws.


I'd be interested to see if there that is due to ethnicity or socio-economic demographics, i.e. are black people over-represented in crime statistics because they're black or because they're poor? My instinct tells me it's the latter, but I have no data to back that up. Do you?

The most racist thing I ever heard was that black people are poisoning the squirrels in Florida (Apparently that's why they are so small...)

Compared to that, Bobdick is a saint.

@kymbos, I like the part where you wrote some stuff and then made a point and stuff.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Are you displeased by the facts? I don't blame you.
Bill Cosby said as much.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Compared to other racial groups, a disproportionately high percentage of melanin-enhanced Americans engage in criminal behavior, perhaps due to a failed cultural model that rejects the values of education, marriage and respect for just laws.

That's racist.



Bill Cosby is allowed to say that because... wait, that would be racist if I mention why... Erm, because he loves Jello Pudding.

>> ^blankfist:
What backlash?
This comes to mind. I also suspect that if I looked back at every Siftquisition, there was no lack of people attacking the person making the complaint by saying that they need to "grow thick skin" with varying degrees of crudeness.

I can't really think of anyone who's ever stood up and said "X crossed the line when they did Y" and they didn't get subjected to a lot of ridicule, and an extended public debate about what a terrible crime it is for someone to get offended by something someone said.

We're supposedly all adults here, right? Maybe that should also mean that when people say something crossed the line, we shouldn't just reject that out of hand, and make a big stink about the tyranny of the "white knights" or "crybabies" or "whiners." That doesn't sound like adult behavior to me.

You yourself said there are lots of other places on the internet for people to go. You seem to want the people who're offended by racist commentary and/or personal attacks to be the ones to leave for someplace else.

Me, I want the people who do those things to find someplace else to be, or at least learn to live within our already lenient (and obscenely vague) limits.

>> ^blankfist:

I've been attacked personally for my difference of political beliefs, yet you don't hear me crying foul every damn time someone calls me a libertard or blankfuck or whatever. Sometimes I feel targeted by you, dft, and some other prominent Sifters, but I'm not going to hop on a soapbox and spin a yarn how I'm a victim. That would be disingenuous.


I don't think it would be, necessarily. I think (assuming it wasn't all a stunt just to make a point), this comment by @rottenseed really makes a very cogent argument for why even a first class troll (and I mean that in the nicest possible way) like him would be offended by being singled out and called a dumbass.

I think what he said about the way he conducts himself is true -- he makes incisive satire about the overall mood of the Sift without ever being mean spirited, and I can't recall seeing him make a personal attack.

I do think it'd be hard for you to make the case that (for example) me calling you a dumbass would be over the line. But that doesn't mean there are no limits on the kinds of things it's reasonable for me to say to you, either. If you feel hectored by me, you shouldn't be forced to either live with it or leave the Sift. You have a right to be here without being bullied. I also think you have a right to have it dealt with privately so you don't have to deal with the insensitive assholes who'd call you names for complaining in the first place...

Not only was his comment egregious, it was also abominable, atrocious, awful, base, beastly, beneath contempt, conspicuous, contemptible, crass, deplorable, despicable, detestable, dire, disgusting, dreadful, excessive, extreme, fetid, filthy, flagrant, foul, glaring, grievous, gross, hateful, heinous, horrible, horrid, hyperbolic, incontinent, infamous, inordinate, intemperate, intolerable, lamentable, loathsome, lousy, marked, monstrous, nasty, nefarious, noisome, notorious, obnoxious, odious, of mark, offensive, out of bounds, outrageous, pitiable, pitiful, regrettable, reprehensible, repulsive, rotten, sad, scandalous, scurvy, shameful, shocking, shoddy, sordid, terrible, unconscionable, undue, unmitigated, unqualified, unreasonable, vile, villainous, woeful, worthless and wretched. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
burdturgler had every right to pull out the ban hammer. That statement is disgusting and has no place on this site, let alone this decade. Who still says shit like that? It's 2011 for Cthulhu's sake.
Also, @blankfist, do you really not see the difference between "nigger" and "cracker"? I sense you do, but if not, I'd be more than happy to elaborate. Also, trying to make this into some kind of political argument is beyond lame. Shame on you. You should know better.

Whatever, selfrighteousfuturetoday. What he said wasn't that egregious. And certainly not worth a ban. I stand by that.

thesaurus.com FTW

So is this what people call "white guilt"?

Thanks a lot @bareboards2 for upvoting the description of my joke and not the joke proper. To the devil with you!

No, white shame.

I just spent the evening with someone who grew up in Texas. Somehow the topic of racism came up (I didn't do it! I swear!)

She said -- folks around here (meaning Pacific NW) don't believe the stories of what it was like in Texas, the rampant racism. As recently as the 1950s, all black people had to be home on their "side of the tracks" by 9 pm every night. There was a curfew on the books.

When I was born, there were still people alive who had been slaves.

We white people have a great deal to be shamed of.

>> ^campionidelmondo:

So is this what people call "white guilt"?

Fixed!

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Thanks a lot @bareboards2 for upvoting the description of my joke and not the joke proper. To the devil with you!

Yeah, that was pretty awesome.

>> ^bareboards2:

We white people[...]

Racial generalizations like that are really out of place here! I don't know who the white burdturgler is around here, but I'm sure he is highly offended!

Jokes aside, I don't think bk should be banned for his comment. He didn't judge black people in it, nor did he say it is right to call them by a racial slur. I'm not saying that his statement wasn't motivated by racism, but if you ban him for that statement you'd have to ban every guy who comments "I'd do her" on a video featuring a female, because that would be as sexist as bks statement was racist (IMHO).

In the end I'd rather see bad and semi-offensive comments on this site and see them downvoted than don't see them at all. IMO that would be much more of a characteristic of a great community than outright banning people for voicing their opinion, no matter how flawed their views might be.

But we all agreed that it was wrong to instaban bk33 (well, except for Burd).

The question becomes for you. @campionidelmondo -- How do you feel about being clear that what was said was inappropriate and if it were repeated, bk33 would be banned? Leaving it up to @bobknight33 to decide if he cares more about making racist "jokes" than he cares about continuing to be part of this community?

I really want to know your answer, if you are interested in delving back into this comment stream....

>> ^bareboards2:

But we all agreed that it was wrong to instaban bk33 (well, except for Burd).

We all don't agree on that apparently.

Who thinks bk33 should have been permanently instabanned? I don't see that in this thread. Except for Burd.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^bareboards2:
But we all agreed that it was wrong to instaban bk33 (well, except for Burd).
We all don't agree on that apparently.

>> ^bareboards2:

Who thinks bk33 should have been permanently instabanned? I don't see that in this thread. Except for Burd.
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^bareboards2:
But we all agreed that it was wrong to instaban bk33 (well, except for Burd).
We all don't agree on that apparently.



Let's see. It appears DFT would be fine with it if you read his first comment above. It doesn't seem longde would put up much of a protest either. And NR didn't speak negatively of the instaban that I can find. Even bea's comment above was indifferent to the ban in the case of bk33 which reads a lot like favoritism to me.

And the ban comment from burd on bk33's profile page got upvotes from shepppard, hpqp and Gallowfalk. I'm sure there are more who rejoiced in silence.

@dystopianfuturetoday, @NetRunner, @longde, @peggedbea, @Shepppard, @hpqp, @Gallowflak

I got a question for you. Blankfist has taken any comments and comment upvotes you have made about the bk33 racist comment as being 100% in favor of instabanning him.

Sorry to bother you, but could you come to this Sift blog and say what you actually think?

"Should racist remarks lead to a non-probationary member (1) being permanently instabanned or (2) should there be a process where a member is warned that a remark has gone too far and if offending behavior is repeated, THEN they will be permanently banned?"

To keep it simple, could we not define the "process" at present? Otherwise, this will devolve into complications.

Oh for the love of...

Did you all know I do impressions? I'm actually rather good at them. Here, see if you can tell who I am now... [turns away from everyone, turns back] "I'm bareboard2 and I @ everybody anywhere at anytime and often. @dag @dag @dag!"

>> ^bareboards2:

Blankfist has taken any comments and comment upvotes you have made about the bk33 racist comment as being 100% in favor of instabanning him.

None of this is true.

I'm all for second chances. Speaking of which, any chance we also repeal burds other ban of the week?

>> ^bareboards2:

How do you feel about being clear that what was said was inappropriate and if it were repeated, bk33 would be banned?

Ask dag. Since choggie outed himself and choggie has been permabanned, I don't think dag has a choice.

Notice the lack of the @ sign. Blankfist just HATES it whenever I ask anyone a direct question.... so I'll let you ask dag this time, if you really want to try.


>> ^campionidelmondo:

I'm all for second chances. Speaking of which, any chance we also repeal burds other ban of the week?
>> ^bareboards2:
How do you feel about being clear that what was said was inappropriate and if it were repeated, bk33 would be banned?

>> ^blankfist:

And NR didn't speak negatively of the instaban that I can find.
>> ^NetRunner:

I don't think a permanent ban is warranted, but I do think comments like that should result in something more serious than a mere response in comments.

@bareboards2 I don't like instaban generally. I'd rather there always be some sort of process involved so that it's not a single individual getting to make a unilateral decision to permanently ban someone.

To @blankfist's larger point, I wouldn't be heartbroken if bobknight never came back. I would not volunteer myself as an impartial judge to preside over his case, either. What's your point? Are you suggesting we set up objective rules and a process to try to get the most impartial result possible?

My point is -- this sift blog is going in circles. Blankie and others are still complaining about Burd instabanning. I would love to move forward from Burd's angry action in the moment (instabanning) and start talking about what IS okay.

I have asked if where we are right now is fine with blankie -- a line drawn in the sand with bk33, that if bk33 CHOOSES to cross it again, he will be banned in the future.

I don't feel like we have agreement on that. As a community. Whenever I try to move forward, I read "oh, burd was terrible for instabanning."

I thought if we could leave that behind, we might make some headway on this racism issue and things could calm down. That folks wouldn't be afraid of being instabanned, because as a community we are saying that is not an option.

So. Folks who say instabanning is not okay now include bb2, blankie, campionidelmondo and netrunner.

Folks who say there needs to be some process whereby some standards are held by the Sift in action and not just on the FAQ page are burdturglar, netrunner and bb2.

Blankie's blog essentially asks -- what is a bannable offense? I am trying to work towards an answer to the question that blankie asked.

Perhaps I am wrong to do that? Somebody help me here. Have I stepped on toes, not knowing the difference between a blog and a sift talk?

I'm quite happy to back out of this.

Blankie? Do you want me to back out of this? I will, if you say so.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
And NR didn't speak negatively of the instaban that I can find.
>> ^NetRunner:
I don't think a permanent ban is warranted, but I do think comments like that should result in something more serious than a mere response in comments.
@bareboards2 I don't like instaban generally. I'd rather there always be some sort of process involved so that it's not a single individual getting to make a unilateral decision to permanently ban someone.
To @blankfist's larger point, I wouldn't be heartbroken if bobknight never came back. I would not volunteer myself as an impartial judge to preside over his case, either. What's your point? Are you suggesting we set up objective rules and a process to try to get the most impartial result possible?

The point I was making was not to make a raciest joke or remark but to point out the fact that when the average white American see such disgraceful behavior coming from young black Americans that thought does come to mind. I agree that it is sad to see that these thoughts still exist in America. I did not mean to utterly offend anyone and for that I am sorry.

Do to the history of of fathers and grandfathers, we all need to rise above actions that can be construed in a negative light. That kind of behavior shown in the video does not help the cause of the Black American. Conversely, A KKK rally also does a great injustice to Black Americans and sadly makes all whites appear to be racists.


I like this site. It sifts really good and really bad videos (depending on ones point of view). Then again isn't this what this site is about, different points of view?

As far as instaban or perm banning I think the insta - ban is a good thing. It allowed the community to discuss and come to a concusses. Kind a of a time out thing. It also allowed myself a chance to read your comments and reflect about them.


They ultimate ban / not ban decision belongs to the community.

@bareboards2, I'm not asking anything except stop permanently banning people for practically minor things - you seem to have a way with misquoting me or misreading me. Or both. I just don't want this site to become a place of rule nazis and central planners - because that'll create boundary pushers.

I can foresee conversations like this if we do:

Sifter #1: "But this isn't against the rules if I write 'n word' because it's not 'n***er', so you can't ban me."

Sifter #2: "Then writing 'n word' is a bannable offense effectively immediately."

Sifter #1: "Sounds good. I guess now we can stop acting like a bunch of the letter after m words now."

Sifter #3: "WTF! He's essentially saying the 'n word' by writing that! He should be banned!"

Sifter #1: "Well, if Sifter #3 is going to write 'n word' and not be banned, then I can too, you big nasty n words."

Upvote this comment if you think this blog needs more comments

But seriously, I think everyone has acted, for the most part, like adults. We learned not to be so trigger happy, and we learned not to tolerate bs so much. Ding, match over.

I agree with Larry Elder that a 60% illegitimacy rate in the Black community is a far more serious problem than racism. (Right now, Whites' illegitimacy rate is 40%, also appalling).

http://videosift.com/video/Larry-Elder-on-the-Tavis-Smiley-Show

Elder has stats on the above video about Black crime. The Department of Justice also documents the racial makeup of crime.

I don't like it any more than you do, but facts is facts.


>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Are you displeased by the facts? I don't blame you.
Bill Cosby said as much.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Compared to other racial groups, a disproportionately high percentage of melanin-enhanced Americans engage in criminal behavior, perhaps due to a failed cultural model that rejects the values of education, marriage and respect for just laws.

That's racist.


Incidentally, there's a pretty big gap between what you said, and what Bill Cosby said.
What Bill Cosby said was basically "you need to do more as parents if you don't want your kids going to jail, it's not just white bigotry at fault".
What you said was promoting a stereotype about "melanin-enhancing Americans", and using Bill Cosby's comments as some sort of justification.
It's true that Cosby's comments imply that there's some truth to the stereotype, but the problem with stereotypes has nothing to do with whether they're true or not, it's about their prevalence causing people to prejudge others on the basis of a stereotype, even though none of them are true for 100% of the group they describe.

>> ^blankfist:

@bareboards2, I'm not asking anything except stop permanently banning people for practically minor things - you seem to have a way with misquoting me or misreading me. Or both. I just don't want this site to become a place of rule nazis and central planners - because that'll create boundary pushers.

Enough with calling everyone who thinks there should be rules of behavior a Nazi and a Communist already.

If you think it's a joke, it's not even remotely funny anymore. If it's not a joke, then you need to seek professional help.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
@bareboards2, I'm not asking anything except stop permanently banning people for practically minor things - you seem to have a way with misquoting me or misreading me. Or both. I just don't want this site to become a place of rule nazis and central planners - because that'll create boundary pushers.
Enough with calling everyone who thinks there should be rules of behavior a Nazi and a Communist already.
If you think it's a joke, it's not even remotely funny anymore. If it's not a joke, then you need to seek professional help.


Again. No truth to any of this.

And you wonder why blacks are still called the n word.

Can someone tell me what part of that's racist?
And furthermore, what part is blatantly racist? Blatant i.e. brazenly obvious

Thanks.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
@bareboards2, I'm not asking anything except stop permanently banning people for practically minor things - you seem to have a way with misquoting me or misreading me. Or both. I just don't want this site to become a place of rule nazis and central planners - because that'll create boundary pushers.
Enough with calling everyone who thinks there should be rules of behavior a Nazi and a Communist already.
If you think it's a joke, it's not even remotely funny anymore. If it's not a joke, then you need to seek professional help.

Again. No truth to any of this.


I'm not asking your opinion on whether you think you're doing it, I'm telling you that you need to stop it, and providing you an example of what "it" is.

Incidentally, you're being litigious, and pushing boundaries. Funny how we don't even need rules for that to happen.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
@bareboards2, I'm not asking anything except stop permanently banning people for practically minor things - you seem to have a way with misquoting me or misreading me. Or both. I just don't want this site to become a place of rule nazis and central planners - because that'll create boundary pushers.
Enough with calling everyone who thinks there should be rules of behavior a Nazi and a Communist already.
If you think it's a joke, it's not even remotely funny anymore. If it's not a joke, then you need to seek professional help.

Again. No truth to any of this.

I'm not asking your opinion on whether you think you're doing it, I'm telling you that you need to stop it, and providing you an example of what "it" is.
Incidentally, you're being litigious, and pushing boundaries. Funny how we don't even need rules for that to happen.


You're an idiot.

So just to be sure, is the person who invokes Nazis and resorts to one line insults the winner of this argument, or the loser?

"invokes Nazis"

Do you mean cite them?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^blankfist:
@bareboards2, I'm not asking anything except stop permanently banning people for practically minor things - you seem to have a way with misquoting me or misreading me. Or both. I just don't want this site to become a place of rule nazis and central planners - because that'll create boundary pushers.
Enough with calling everyone who thinks there should be rules of behavior a Nazi and a Communist already.
If you think it's a joke, it's not even remotely funny anymore. If it's not a joke, then you need to seek professional help.

Again. No truth to any of this.

I'm not asking your opinion on whether you think you're doing it, I'm telling you that you need to stop it, and providing you an example of what "it" is.
Incidentally, you're being litigious, and pushing boundaries. Funny how we don't even need rules for that to happen.

You're an idiot.


Hey, I'm just telling you where the boundary is.

jesus, are we still talking about this???



also, i think i just scrolled past something about my comment reading like favoritism. just to clarify, none of you are my favorites. if burdy banned you all tomorrow, i'd just go back to reading my little book about safe sex through the ages and farting on this stability ball.

Fresh look:

It is a hard decision to ban someone, but I'm siding on the side of banning because of what BK actually contributes to the sift. Here's my thought process:

I guess the fundamental question I ask myself when I come to the sift is: why do I come here?

The reasons I come up with are as follows:
1. To find the best videos on the net as determined by a group of people of varied opinions voting together to "sift" the good ones to the top.
2. To discuss said videos with people of differing opinions
3. To learn from both the videos and the discussions

With this in mind, I will use another oft controversial member as an example: Quantumushroom.

So QM and I are very different people. He's rather conservative on many social and political issues, and we often butt heads when commenting. The difference between QM and BK is that politics is NOT all the QM brings to the sift (the same as I hope it isn't the only thing I bring to the sift). QM has over 100 sifted videos, only some of which have political leanings. QM also comments very amusingly on non-political videos and I find myself upvoting some of his comments because like other members I respect, he finds witty things to say about amusing videos.

Do I often times get frustrated with QM? Absolutely. Does he redeem himself by saying hilarious non-political stuff? Absolutely as well.

It goes back to the reasons I come here. QM participates in the sift wholeheartedly. I have major issues with some of his political/social leanings, but he's playing the sift game across the whole spectrum: he sifts, he votes, he comments, he laughs with us, and like many many people, doesn't agree 100% with everyone and has moments where he says stuff that pisses others off.

Now BK, on the other hand, has 1 sifted video in 2+ years and 8 PQ vids... His MO as far as comments are concerned is just to be abrasive most of the time. Basically, he's just trolling. Kind of like Shinyblurry and ironically on his side, but unlike Shiny he doesn't seem to find value in being the "Good Christian." At least Shiny is polite about his trolling, BK just seems to be a old-school, just here to piss people off, troll.

@NetRunner, my führer, my leader, my guide, so glad that you're around to dictate to us. Let's just do away with that FAQ or any community decisions. What other boundaries must I be aware of? Is it only things that begin with n, like nigger or nazi?

@marbles, you asked why it was a racist comment. Did you read this? Come ask me questions on my profile page if this isn't clear?


>> ^bareboards2:

Here's the racist's mindset -- I know this, because I recently spent an appalling three days with my racist uncle in Oklahoma:
If a black person does something bad, then all black people are presumed to be bad. If a white person does something bad, then it is just a white person doing something bad.
When bobk made his comment, he was looking at a group of law breakers and extrapolated their behavior onto an entire population, based on the color of their skin, using a word that has been employed by whites to dehumanize and denigrate.
What bobk said was probably the most deeply offensive racist comment I have read here on the Sift. The fact that this is being discussed as an intellectual word problem really bothers me, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/smooman" title="member since October 28th, 2008" class="profilelink">smooman. The fact that he didn't get banned for a week or two really bothers me, dag.

>> ^UsesProzac:

@NetRunner, my führer, my leader, my guide, so glad that you're around to dictate to us. Let's just do away with that FAQ or any community decisions. What other boundaries must I be aware of? Is it only things that begin with n, like nigger or nazi?


I want community decisions, written rules, and a form of due process. If someone like blankfist or possibly you oppose those sorts of things, then I'm fine with adapting to the more primitive mode of dealing with these disputes you guys say you prefer.

If what you really want is for people to just be forced to shut the fuck up anytime they're bothered by something, then you're just plain out of luck, and are being much bigger tyrants than you imagine people like me to be.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^UsesProzac:
@NetRunner, my führer, my leader, my guide, so glad that you're around to dictate to us. Let's just do away with that FAQ or any community decisions. What other boundaries must I be aware of? Is it only things that begin with n, like nigger or nazi?

I want community decisions, written rules, and a form of due process. If someone like blankfist or possibly you oppose those sorts of things, then I'm fine with adapting to the more primitive mode of dealing with these disputes you guys say you prefer.
If what you really want is for people to just be forced to shut the fuck up anytime they're bothered by something, then you're just plain out of luck, and are being much bigger tyrants than you imagine people like me to be.


I want! I want! I want! Waaaaaaa!

Never happy it seems. I thought I was giving you what you want. Nothing written down, no community input, just people dealing with people directly.

This is how we should resolve our disputes, no?
>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^UsesProzac:
@NetRunner, my führer, my leader, my guide, so glad that you're around to dictate to us. Let's just do away with that FAQ or any community decisions. What other boundaries must I be aware of? Is it only things that begin with n, like nigger or nazi?

I want community decisions, written rules, and a form of due process. If someone like blankfist or possibly you oppose those sorts of things, then I'm fine with adapting to the more primitive mode of dealing with these disputes you guys say you prefer.
If what you really want is for people to just be forced to shut the fuck up anytime they're bothered by something, then you're just plain out of luck, and are being much bigger tyrants than you imagine people like me to be.

I want! I want! I want! Waaaaaaa!

A group of white boys explaining to an African American what racism is? Sounds more like white privilege @campiondelblanco. >> ^campionidelmondo:

So is this what people call "white guilt"?

So one cannot hold opinions about racism pertaining to a specfic race unless their skin is also that color? ..that's racist.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A group of white boys explaining to an African American what racism is? Sounds more like white privilege @campiondelblanco. >> ^campionidelmondo:
So is this what people call "white guilt"?

He also assumes that everybody involved in the discussion is male. That's so chauvinistic and sexist.

Not can't. But research shows that those best qualified to discuss minority issues are the minority members -- fairly sensible, they have the most investment in the topic. So, not can't, but usually just shouldn't.
>> ^UsesProzac:

So one cannot hold opinions about racism pertaining to a specfic race unless their skin is also that color? ..that's racist.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
A group of white boys explaining to an African American what racism is? Sounds more like white privilege @campiondelblanco. >> ^campionidelmondo:
So is this what people call "white guilt"?

@UsesProzac - you and I will never understand what it is like to be black. We may hold opinions on what we think it may be like, but to try and tell a person of color that the racism he feels is not really racism is both arrogant and ignorant.

@campiondelpendejos - Find me a woman in this thread who lectured BT on racism you will win the rare honor of being correct. Fingers are crossed for ya buddy.

Time and time again, I see conservatives struggle to understand that their general worldview is completely subjective. You see it in Ayn Rand's 'Objectivism' which is anything but. You see it in the Christian right's 'Moral Relativism' which comes with so many subjective assumptions. You see it in right wing 'Libertarianism' which assumes that a very narrow and specific political-economic worldview IS liberty. You see it in scripture, which is taken as law and revealed truth.

I think these conservatives are unable to empathize with anything they cannot directly experience themselves. "I'm white and experience little to no negative consequences because of it. Therefore, all people must experience little to no negative consequences due to their race." Then they find a quote from Larry Elder or Bill Cosby that confirms this bias and think, "See? All those other black people are just a bunch of whiners."

I think this is how blankfist is able to see the words 'cracker' and 'nigger' as the same thing, despite the vast historical, social and political differences between the two words. It's the same way he and other conservatives are able to see scientific consensus on global climate change and corporate anti-science PR as equitable. Fair and Balanced (not to mention he's been submitting a lot of FOX NEWS over the past year.)

I also find it interesting that as much lip service as blankfist pays to anti-authoritarianism, he fails to see the authoritarianism of whites, of males and of rich people in this country. It's extra ironic when you consider that the government for which we both loathe is comprised primarily of rich white males. Put the pieces together, my cracker!

Conservatives just have too much psychological baggage when it comes to racism (sexism, homophobia or other types of bigotry). Just to get to square one would require hacking through a million acre jungle of psychology with a machete. It's the kind of thing that will never happen unless an individual conservative has the will to make it happen for him (or her ) self

In short, this conversation is futile.

I blame myself for posting the video.

The comment was despicable but shouldn't have merited banishment. Especially for someone who has been a member for so long.

I also blame blankfist for teaching us how to ban people - i.e., choggie. Because blankfist wants to be the biggest asshole on the sift, and because choggie was a bigger asshole, blankfist banned him. It's rather ironic.

Let's just stop banning people. Donwvote videos and comments you dislike. Upvote videos and comments you enjoy.

After all, this isn't kindergarten.

http://videosift.com/video/I-Get-Mad-1

Sesame Street says it is okay to get mad. And that friends would understand if you get mad when they do something awful.

Seems like the Sift missed that episode of Sesame Street. Burd isn't allowed his justifiable anger, he gets beat up for it.

Hey! Don't blame yourself for posting that video!

There was nothing racist about that video -- it was a group of assholes breaking the law. It was interesting information about life in the big city -- and a scary reminder of the shadow side of instant technology.

It only became racist when someone made it so.

After all, Tailhook was all white men of privilege. The riots in Vancouver after the Stanley Cup were white men. Nobody looked at those incidents and said.... what? What is the white equivalent to "nigger"?

The rest of your comment? Right on, brother, right on. (Except I think we should be able to ban folks -- the threat of banishment is the only thing that works with some personalities. Because, unfortunately, this is still kindergarten in a lot of ways. It's the anonymous nature of the interwebs, I think -- brings out the naughty kid in some folks.)



>> ^MrFisk:

I blame myself for posting the video.
The comment was despicable but shouldn't have merited banishment. Especially for someone who has been a member for so long.
I also blame blankfist for teaching us how to ban people - i.e., choggie. Because blankfist wants to be the biggest asshole on the sift, and because choggie was a bigger asshole, blankfist banned him. It's rather ironic.
Let's just stop banning people. Donwvote videos and comments you dislike. Upvote videos and comments you enjoy.
After all, this isn't kindergarten.

Thank fuck we've got you to mother hen us all to death with your constant pecking.

>> ^bareboards2:

Hey! Don't blame yourself for posting that video!
There was nothing racist about that video -- it was a group of assholes breaking the law. It was interesting information about life in the big city -- and a scary reminder of the shadow side of instant technology.
It only became racist when someone made it so.
After all, Tailhook was all white men of privilege. The riots in Vancouver after the Stanley Cup were white men. Nobody looked at those incidents and said.... what? What is the white equivalent to "nigger"?
The rest of your comment? Right on, brother, right on. (Except I think we should be able to ban folks -- the threat of banishment is the only thing that works with some personalities. Because, unfortunately, this is still kindergarten in a lot of ways. It's the anonymous nature of the interwebs, I think -- brings out the naughty kid in some folks.)

>> ^MrFisk:
I blame myself for posting the video.
The comment was despicable but shouldn't have merited banishment. Especially for someone who has been a member for so long.
I also blame blankfist for teaching us how to ban people - i.e., choggie. Because blankfist wants to be the biggest asshole on the sift, and because choggie was a bigger asshole, blankfist banned him. It's rather ironic.
Let's just stop banning people. Donwvote videos and comments you dislike. Upvote videos and comments you enjoy.
After all, this isn't kindergarten.

I love you, too.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Thank fuck we've got you to mother hen us all to death with your constant pecking.

>> ^MrFisk:

I blame myself for posting the video.
The comment was despicable but shouldn't have merited banishment. Especially for someone who has been a member for so long.
I also blame blankfist for teaching us how to ban people - i.e., choggie. Because blankfist wants to be the biggest asshole on the sift, and because choggie was a bigger asshole, blankfist banned him. It's rather ironic.
Let's just stop banning people. Donwvote videos and comments you dislike. Upvote videos and comments you enjoy.
After all, this isn't kindergarten.


And fuck you very much, sanctimonious asshole. I didn't ban choggie, but you'd know that if you were paying attention.

It was this kind of shit that got him banned by admins. And this. And this. He broke the rules with such careless disdain and in his final days he asked the admins to ban him, so don't rewrite history with me as your antagonist.

I didn't ban him. But I was glad to see him go. Now suck a dick.

Great blog post.
* DISCARD

Issykitty, I know you're sticking up for your man, but do you have any opinions besides wanting to trash the whole dialogue?
>> ^Issykitty:

Great blog post.
DISCARD

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Find me a woman


Gee I wasn't seriously suggesting you're sexist, calm down. No need for silly name calling. Besides, I don't even know what that means. Not every non-english language is automatically spanish.

I wouldn't call blankfist's telling MrFisk to go suck a dick, and calling him a sanctimonious asshole, and calling Netrunner an idiot a "dialogue," especially when blankfist has accused bareboards of having a bunch of people banned when that wasn't the case. Because she is female and doesn't resort to that kind of language, is that why you target her as a punching bag? I really would like to know. Also, Seems just a tad out of line, destructive and pointless. This is me clarifying my fake * discard invocation. Honestly, I would if it were my blog. This is a fucking load of shit. I think this is more about how much we all know you hate burdturgler. Can't you just rejoice in the fact that he left again?

Yeah, and excuse me, but I am kind of upset, probably due to my hubby being out of town at length and being an raging hormonal cauldron. Oh, and I just moved and the movers stole something from me. I probably shouldn't be looking at stupid blogs that piss me off.

@Issykitty, so it's okay for MrFisk to write this "Because blankfist wants to be the biggest asshole on the sift, and because choggie was a bigger asshole, blankfist banned him. It's rather ironic." But if I respond in kind, I'm in the wrong? Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it.

I'm not sure what bb2 being female has to do with anything. Weird comment. And no one is using her as a punching bag. She's a real piece of work, and was PMing me rather regularly for a while which got annoying fast. I just deleted them and ignored her for a while. Then this happened and I told her it wasn't necessary and since she's edited her comments to hide her tracks: http://i53.tinypic.com/2a4nyah.png

And for being such a target of bullying she sure does seem to do her fair share of name calling and catty commenting: http://i53.tinypic.com/algj7p.png

But in your eyes I'll always be the prick no matter what. And that is something I can live with without losing a wink of sleep. Thanks.

>> ^Issykitty:

Yeah, and excuse me, but I am kind of upset, probably due to my hubby being out of town at length and being an raging hormonal cauldron. Oh, and I just moved and the movers stole something from me. I probably shouldn't be looking at stupid blogs that piss me off.


I'm upset too. I don't like fighting with everyone over something so ridiculous.

I don't hate burdturgler. He lied to dag--he can't even read private profile messages without immense trouble and did no fact checking--and told him I was sending him private profile messages when I never did and that got me hobbled. I should dislike him for that and I do a bit. I don't like lying. It's not conducive to anything. I should dislike him for his blatant double standard as it applies to the word nigger. nigger.videosift.com, etc, he says nigger more than anyone I've ever seen on this site. Insulting me on my profile for insulting another person on their profile when he called a Siftquisition against me for that very thing? It's a daisy chain of hypocrisy. I don't rejoice in the fact that he left again because it leaves no recourse or closure. I'm certain he'll come back just to leave again. Volatile people are volatile.

And being female has no bearing on what language or words a person chooses. bareboards2 chose to put herself out there and invite attention. Her vagina has nothing to do with how I dislike her personality. She's manipulative, attention-starved and annoying in her dogged persistence and demands for answers, @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@.

blankfist accused bareboards2 of banning a bunch of people? What? I don't know why that's what you take away from this and if you'd like to, perhaps clarify that statement or at least cite what you're referring to?

>> ^Issykitty:

I wouldn't call blankfist's telling MrFisk to go suck a dick, and calling him a sanctimonious asshole, and calling Netrunner an idiot a "dialogue," especially when blankfist has accused bareboards of having a bunch of people banned when that wasn't the case. Because she is female and doesn't resort to that kind of language, is that why you target her as a punching bag? I really would like to know. Also, Seems just a tad out of line, destructive and pointless. This is me clarifying my fake discard invocation. Honestly, I would if it were my blog. This is a fucking load of shit. I think this is more about how much we all know you hate burdturgler. Can't you just rejoice in the fact that he left again?

There sure is a lot of words in this here blog.

@UsesProzac, re:bb2 being involved with bans, I think she means chicchorea and joedirt. Joedirt was banned for calling bb2 a cunt. Chicchorea was banned for PMing bb2? Or writing bad things on her profile? I can't remember, and I'm too lazy to look it up. I just know she was indirectly involved. It was hardly an accusation.

Ah, thanks. I didn't know that. I was looking through everything in this thread trying to puzzle it out.

>> ^blankfist:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/UsesProzac" title="member since August 2nd, 2007" class="profilelink">UsesProzac, re:bb2 being involved with bans, I think she means chicchorea and joedirt. Joedirt was banned for calling bb2 a cunt. Chicchorea was banned for PMing bb2? Or writing bad things on her profile? I can't remember, and I'm too lazy to look it up. I just know she was indirectly involved. It was hardly an accusation.

You proudly referred to yourself as the Harrasshole. He said you wanted to be the biggest asshole. Is that really not accurate? Sounds like you overreacted to something that has a bit of truth to it.

"Sorry my blog doesn't suit your sensibilities. Why don't you go write your own blog and show us how it's done. I'll then buy you a pack of gum so you can show us all how to chew it."

You set up this blog with a smart-ass opening comment, framing anyone that disagreed with you as "smartass apologists." Pardon me if I ignore everything else you have to say now, especially since your response to Netrunner was "You're an idiot." Yeah, we're all idiots in thinking we could have "dialogue" with you. Sorry about that. Yeah, I can be a sarcastic bitch ALSO.

@Issykitty - HOW DARE YOU INSULT THIS MEETING OF GREAT MINDS!

FYI - I like when I write a thoughtful comment and it gets downvoted by the people I'm arguing with, especially when they aren't able to come up with any kind of worthwhile response. I take it as a sign of weakness. Very cool.

Also, I'm not pissed at anyone, Prozac, Camp or Blanco. I'm just - as always - up for some lively discussion and not afraid to be brutally honest. At the risk of further offending the klansmen in the room, I think conservatives also intertwine politics with emotions and personality more so than liberals, and thus end up getting mad and thinking everyone else is mad too. Who knows? I'm limited to my own SUBJECTIVE REALITY.

@campiondelmenudo - I know your sn is Italian and possibly a soccer reference, but thanks for the tip all the same. I can stop mocking your screename if it bugs you. Your screename just begs out for mockery IMO. Feel free to return the favor if you like. FalopianSutureTooGay is probably the route I'd go if I wanted to mock my own screename.

Honestly, this 'discussion' is pretty lightweight stuff. I probably wouldn't even be slumming here at the bottom of this dumb thread if I hadn't been suffering from an unfortunate lack of wifi.

Piss-off-some-conservatives jones: satisfied

Namaste

Brutally honest people tend to not take offense to having their privileged childhood hinted at. But then again, they probably wouldn't call liberals conservatives in the hopes of goading them either.

Insincerity. Tsk.

Yeah, and that "subjective" disease is only on the Right? To the left, no one ever earned their wealth, when in reality wealth is a by-product of someone doing something better, faster, cheaper.

"All rich people are evil exploiters, all White people are racist and all rich White people are imperialists, and don't get me started on those CORPORATIONS!

"By my very existence I am entitled to everything: living wage, free auto, free home, free education, free health care, free day care, etc."

And don't forget Race! the second religion of the left behind raising taxes. RACE is like peanut butter to the chocolate of VICTIMHOOD! Can we throw in some class warfare?!

"Don't you know no Black person ever amounted to anything without help from government? Don't you people see, we White Liberals are the GOOD guys! We CARE! Here, have some of this guy's money!"



Most people, if they survive kollij, graduate to find the world a very different place than the fictional one Professor Marx was bullshitting about. The real world is a place where results matter (except in government) and there are real consequences to making choices.

The whole premise of neo-liberalism is that poverty breeds screw-ups, when it's the other way around. But no good liberal was overly concerned with facts. People who lead with their FEELINGS are easily manipulated.

Not ONE person besides bobknight professed any outrage at the crime in that video. In unpretty language he noted the obvious common denominator. Big fucking deal.

Do you think the people who own that store deserved to have it raided by thugs? Do you think your precious nanny-gov is going to reimburse those shopkeeps? They probably are taxed to death already by the city and state, and now THIS?

Those fucking knuckleheads in the video weren't starving or dressed in rags. They were thieves and the verminous product of a community in serious fucking trouble, but all the liberal does is attempt a politically-correct beatdown on anyone stating the obvious while whine-wondering aloud: Gee Wally, why are we building all these prisons?

A: For the poor-me entitled victims YOUR government-funded, consequence-free liberal bullshit creates. Try not to look so shocked.




















>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Time and time again, I see conservatives struggle to understand that their general worldview is completely subjective...

QM, so help me I am going to go apeshit on your dumbass!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol

I really enjoyed the name calling example you found that I made, blankfist.

The thing is, I didn't call you names. I described your behavior and your thinking process. You are illogical. You are irrational. And you are a bully. I don't have to find examples, the evidence is everywhere.

The very next line I wrote was that I was a bit of a bully, too. Because I am. Just like you are.

Here's another descriptor, blanky -- you cherry pick words. Someone will write a long, logical, and rational comment, and you cherry pick one little phrase and work it like a bulldog. Grr, grr, grr, rassling it into submission. Pick any comment stream and I guarantee you I will find at least one example of this, if you were involved for any length of time. Including this blog.

....How long did you have to search to find some examples of me losing my temper? There aren't many, are there? (FYI -- I have lost it, many times, but I manage to delete before sending.)

But honestly -- how did this get to be about me, anyway? I am sick to my stomach at finding myself in the middle of a fracas. Jesus H Fucking Christ on a stick. I ask a question and UsesP characterizes it as "demanding answers". What the fuck?

Clearly, there is something about my personality that is offputting to UP and blankie. Fine. Ignore me, for gods sake. Oh, I know! GROW THICKER SKIN. Toughen up, guys!

This blog is about dealing with the bans, right? Why were there bans? Why so many? Something isn't working right with all these bans, so what do we do to fix it? Isn't it logical and rational to try to avoid bans in the future? How do we do that? (Oh look, a bunch of questions! The horror, the horror!)

But if the point of the blog is to whine about bans and how we are such a great community except for burdturglar (and bareboards2? nah, this isn't about me at all, blanky says so), then HEY mission accomplished! There has been whining! There has been blaming others! Good job all!

If that is the point of the blog, then we are done here, right?

Not long. It took all of twenty seconds. And sometimes AFTER sending, you manage to edit it and replace it with a "."

>> ^bareboards2:

....How long did you have to search to find some examples of me losing my temper? There aren't many, are there? (FYI -- I have lost it, many times, but I manage to delete before sending.)

Hey, you have a nice fast computer! Good for you!

Not all of those "." are nasty comments -- some of them are, most of them aren't. As you well know.


>> ^UsesProzac:

Not long. It took all of twenty seconds. And sometimes AFTER sending, you manage to edit it and replace it with a "."
>> ^bareboards2:
....How long did you have to search to find some examples of me losing my temper? There aren't many, are there? (FYI -- I have lost it, many times, but I manage to delete before sending.)

I'm just curious -- did anybody actually go look at those examples of my horridness towards blankie? Does anyone other than UP and blankie think that I wrote anything really off base, wrong, or inaccurate?

I have actually written much worse things than the two examples blankie happened to dredge up. Things that were actually calling people names and hurtful.

And the fact that I have shame and do remove things I have written in the heat of the moment? I think that speaks well of my character, rather than the reverse.

You can call that "hiding my tracks" or you can call that remorse and an attempt to remove offensive material so it won't hurt anyone anymore.

I am quick to apologize, and I apologize sincerely. If I have done something wrong.

Aren't they? Who can say? I cannot. What proof have I? What proof have you? What are you trying to hide with ninja edits? If I were your friend, would I, too, be eligible for the simpering asskissery? Woe.

Edit: Is your computer really taking more than twenty seconds to load a page? Ugh, that would actually make me feel bad for you.

>> ^bareboards2:

Hey, you have a nice fast computer! Good for you!
Not all of those "." are nasty comments -- some of them are, most of them aren't. As you well know.

>> ^UsesProzac:
Not long. It took all of twenty seconds. And sometimes AFTER sending, you manage to edit it and replace it with a "."
>> ^bareboards2:
....How long did you have to search to find some examples of me losing my temper? There aren't many, are there? (FYI -- I have lost it, many times, but I manage to delete before sending.)

I call the ninja edits cowardice and a lack of conviction and I find it more damning than if you kept your "outbursts" there for the world to see.

>> ^bareboards2:

I'm just curious -- did anybody actually go look at those examples of my horridness towards blankie? Does anyone other than UP and blankie think that I wrote anything really off base, wrong, or inaccurate?
I have actually written much worse things than the two examples blankie happened to dredge up. Things that were actually calling people names and hurtful.
And the fact that I have shame and do remove things I have written in the heat of the moment? I think that speaks well of my character, rather than the reverse.
You can call that "hiding my tracks" or you can call that remorse and an attempt to remove offensive material so it won't hurt anyone anymore.
I am quick to apologize, and I apologize sincerely. If I have done something wrong.

I sent you some PMs that you didn't like -- they weren't mean, they were just me being sticky old emotional me, and you didn't like them. Told me to stop PMing you.

So I turned those innocuous but annoying PMs into "."

So yeah. You know full well I didn't send you any nasty comments.

Annoying? Oh yeah, I get it. I annoy you. I would love to drop this whole thing, but I seem to be irresistible to you right now. Tell me the magic words to make this stop. I'll stop. My magic words are "goodbye." You say "goodbye" I promise I won't respond.

>> ^UsesProzac:

Aren't they? Who can say? I cannot. What proof have I? What proof have you? What are you trying to hide with ninja edits? If I were your friend, would I, too, be eligible for the simpering asskissery? Woe.
>> ^bareboards2:
Hey, you have a nice fast computer! Good for you!
Not all of those "." are nasty comments -- some of them are, most of them aren't. As you well know.

>> ^UsesProzac:
Not long. It took all of twenty seconds. And sometimes AFTER sending, you manage to edit it and replace it with a "."
>> ^bareboards2:
....How long did you have to search to find some examples of me losing my temper? There aren't many, are there? (FYI -- I have lost it, many times, but I manage to delete before sending.)

Fair enough. That is your opinion.

"Goodbye."

>> ^UsesProzac:

I call the ninja edits cowardice and a lack of conviction and I find it more damning than if you kept your "outbursts" there for the world to see.
>> ^bareboards2:
I'm just curious -- did anybody actually go look at those examples of my horridness towards blankie? Does anyone other than UP and blankie think that I wrote anything really off base, wrong, or inaccurate?
I have actually written much worse things than the two examples blankie happened to dredge up. Things that were actually calling people names and hurtful.
And the fact that I have shame and do remove things I have written in the heat of the moment? I think that speaks well of my character, rather than the reverse.
You can call that "hiding my tracks" or you can call that remorse and an attempt to remove offensive material so it won't hurt anyone anymore.
I am quick to apologize, and I apologize sincerely. If I have done something wrong.

I'll be in the lounge. This protracted argument has gone stale. "Good Riddance."

I happen to dig antiquated terminology, so I will grant your wish to bear the title 'liberal'. I'm feeling rather generous today, so I'll do you one better and also bequeath you with the title 'gay', which is an antiquated term for happiness.

Henceforth you shall be known as: Blankfist - the gay liberal

.

@Issykitty - I'd love to see you take qm apart.

Do it! Do it! Do it!

I know you would, @dystopianfuturetoday. AND you'd probably fap to it as well. I miss you baby!

Get a room!

Nooo, don't get a room. ::sits back with her popcorn and pineapple juice with coconut rum::

I have margaritas in the blender!


>> ^UsesProzac:

Nooo, don't get a room. ::sits back with her popcorn and pineapple juice with coconut rum::

This blog ended on a lame note.

>> ^blankfist:

This blog ended on a lame note.


Yeah, I was sorta expecting a make-up orgy to break out. Oh well.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
This blog ended on a lame note.

Yeah, I was sorta expecting a make-up orgy to break out. Oh well.


You're an idiot.

YOU
>> ^blankfist:

This blog ended on a lame note.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
This blog ended on a lame note.

Yeah, I was sorta expecting a make-up orgy to break out. Oh well.


You're and idiot.