Nah, it's just more of the same weird petulant sh1t you always end up falling back on, especially in these debates. I've seen you do it loads of times.

You just didn't like that your opinions were being challenged, on your terms and in your language. Both of us bemoan the lack of discussion on here. We finally get a discussion going, and you try to make it about my profile (which was actually about Corbyn on Russia - not me) and pretending it's about looking as though I'm in the right. It's childish nonsense that you would see straight trough if it was anyone else.


It's cool, I just won't waste my time with this weirdo sh1t anymore.

Wafer thin really, the "sides of history" comment was a dogwhistle for sure but that's all it took for you to start mirroring the exact shutdown tactics I'm talking about that come from the people who you claim don't exist. "We could discuss this but unfortunately you are all just weirdos obsessed with what genitals people have UwU". Those aren't even your own words :shrug:. Default.

Interestingly though what seems to have bugged you is that you think I was saying its all about appearences; that you're virtue signalling. That's not what I think at all. I think you just genuinely think that there's a clear line in the sand of history and that you're on the right side of it. I don't think that line exists. We're not missing out on a discussion here because those are not compatible premises.

Trust me dude, nothing you said bugged or bothered me. I was telling someone in PM exactly what you would do in this "discussion" before you did it, through the whole conversation, and whaddya know it ended as I said it would.

It was obvious. We all saw the way you used to do it to Dezzy, Smithy and everyone, especially the way you hounded 2 sugars off the forum. I thought the fact you pretended to be about discussion would see this play out differently, but maybe thinking you were better than some of the mouth breathers is my error, so I apologise for that.

I was taking part in a discussion about our differing opinions, you just projected your MO onto me. Even now you're trying to justify and pretend the comment wasn't what it was supposed to be. Just own it and keep it moving. This is what you do, and I don't want to deal with the stupidity anymore, Pretty simple stuff.

It's fairly evident that you've gone totally off-piste with your own frustrations here and also abundantly evident who it is shutting down conversation... We've gone from me making a loaded comment about "the right side of history" to "me hounding Dezzy, Smithy and Twosugars off the forum" in a matter of two posts.

I know people get frustrated when their deeply-held ideologies are challenged in ways that they can't effectively back up without getting angry.

If that makes people feel "hounded" or disengage entirely that's not really on me is it? For what it's worth, Twosugars was clearly deeply affected by the start of the pandemic and the worrying level of doom posting was starting to cause clear anxiety in multiple other members. Yes I called that out and in hindsight not as gently as I might have but to call it "hounding" is grasping at straws.

Not really much to say here, I think some self-reflection on your trigger topics is probably warranted because you seem to think you're capable of objectively discussing some topics that you evidently are not, and have a clear moral stance on.

I'm literally baffled that you've boiled over because of a one-line dogwhistle and a pretty gentle one at that.

[Twosugars was clearly deeply affected by the start of the pandemic]


I hoped he would return

Ohhh just to go back to this, as maybe it caused some confusion, I've just gone on the PC and noticed that this is your user title - I was on Tapatalk before and actually had no idea what you were talking about when you said "your profile", doubly confused as I knew what I was referring to had nothing to do with Corbyn or Russia. So FWIW (not much, I'm sure) the comment was not about your profile, it was about this:

https://www.thisisbigbrother.com/for...5&postcount=91

(A quite clear statement that you believe in the premise)

I mean, just saying you saw the debate go the way you imagined doesn't make it true. The discussion was on your terms in your language, there was no frustration, it's clear to anyone who reads this. You changed the debate and are now trying to attempt to patronise your way to victory and pretending I'm all angry and frustrated, which just isn't backed up by anything other than you repeating it. It was on your terms in your language, and that's what you didn't like.

I'll make one more point about 2s before I leave your to your fantasies. You weren't a little over zealous, you were on his case day after day. It made a few people really uncomfortable. But if you can BS about a discussion happening in real time, you can definitely BS about something that happened a while back.

I'm out on this anyway, unless you come back to BS about 2s again, because I'm sure we could both do this nonsense all day of just going back and forth and go nowhere, and while watching you flounder by projection is entertaining, the snooker is way more entertaining.

Enjoy your bank holiday.

(:umm2: not really sure where to start with that one above)


Ad hominem after ad hominem after ad hominem. Yes, people can see.

Because the premise is correct. There is a right and wrong side of history. Not in every case and in every situation, but it exists.

Slavery and the holocaust are 2 clear examples of this.

Hiroshima and Dresden are 2 issues where on the surface they look black and white, but it is way more nuanced, based around the time period, events, and war.

In relation to the post, you're quoting then yes, we are in a climate emergency. If our species makes it another 200 years, climate activists will be viewed in those terms, whereas the "it doesn't exist, or it does exist but shut up about it and stop the protesting", will be on the wrong side of history. Some events are nuanced, some are clear and obvious. It's not that complicated.

I just held a mirror up to the way you took this conversation, and the way you act. When the discussion was about the topic, I was in, when you took it away, it was the end. Pretty obvious and visible.

The fact you're still scrambling is hilarious though. If I'm what you claimed a few post ago posts ago, none of this should bother you in the slightest, so move on.

Of course, the "Look as though you're on the right side of history" comment, that took place in the discussion, and not after it, is definitely not an ad hominem though, right?

..... It's a dogwhistle, which is on the dirtier side but it's not eye gouging or fish-hooking. I guess you could argue its a type of ad-hominem in that it's probing for a reaction but it's not an attack per se. That might be splitting hairs.

In the spirit of full disclosure I have no issue with anything you've said other than the suggestion that I've "hounded" anyone off the forum, which I think for one is a massive exaggeration, and even if it wasn't, whether or not anyone leaves the forum is no one else's responsibility nor should it be made out to be. I'm not here to swaddle anyone in cotton wool? If I'd been threatening or harassing that would be one thing, but posting things people don't want to hear doesn't fall into either of those. 2S was posting every 10 minutes or so almost 24/7 in an increasingly frantic manner about Covid. I liked 2S as a member and don't think I handled it particularly well, but hey, weren't we all a little frantic at the time. I don't think it was out of line to counter the posts. I don't think it was out of line to point out that his mental health seemed to be deteriorating. I do think I could have done that with more empathy. We actually did have a PM conversation about that not long before he left. Beyond that, his decision to step away has absolutely nothing to do with me.

. we are all adults and make our own choices

Speaking of dog whistles.. remember when I called you an armchair psychologist? Ah, memories :joker:

I'm going to be honest and say no :joker:. Was I offended? I wouldn't say I have any issue with that term these days but I can imagine I was hopping mad.

According to the Financial Times Musk will overturn Trump's twitter ban if his bid is successful to buy twitter. That's gonna go down well!

They want kids as young as 4 to learn about mastabation .

What? Who does?

More voices are better than fewer voices :shrug: I know a handful of idiots decided to interpret his words as an invitation to "protest" at the Capitol, but it's not his fault people are dumb?

if twitter ends up a cesspit then trump will be perfectly in his element there. I think Musk is naive wrt twitter because he is coming from a country that supposedly has free speech. What he doesn't seem to have considered it that twitter is world wide and each jurisdiction has laws that they must abide by or face massive fines or blocked

1) why would it?
2) are you suggesting it isn't already?

Correct, WHO does.

According to those in the know, the musk acquisition of twitter is becoming less likely by the day, so all this stuff about trump's ban being overturned is completely meaningless

Yes it takes a long time to go through.
Anyway.

Elon Musk says the 'Democratic Party has been hijacked by extremists'
 

If it does happen I reckon a lot of people are going to find themselves facing disciplinary action at work or getting police cautions.

Y’see, people are dumb and will think “Musk has bought Twitter and Musk says anything goes now so I’m free to do what I want!” … and will not realise or accept that they still fall under their own country’s harassment laws, hate speech laws, the social media conduct rules of their employer… etc.

They’ll be shooting their mouths off smugly confident that they “can’t” face any repercussions.

I’m here for it tbqfh.

Tbh no-one should use their real full name online, or link their workplace etc. There are always psychos online who want to ruin people's lives for typing words on a screen.