"wrong call by the editor?" Topic

Maybe he's just a nice guy who happens to be wrong (in your opinion)? Isn't that a possibility?

Incredibly unlikely if he repeatedly posts specific bigoted talking points.

Incredibly unlikely if he repeatedly posts specific bigoted talking points.

But we're talking about a single instance here, correct?

One comment made in a larger discussion.

Are you trying to make a "guilt by association" argument? That if bigots say X, and this guy says X, then he must be a bigot?

Don't you see that in your mind, you have already judged him as being a certain type of person?

Unbelievable.

This whole thread personifies why I won't upgrade my membership.

Don't you see that in your mind, you have already judged him as being a certain type of person?

I've judged him by what he said (self-identified as very conservative, and posting bigoted statements and standing by them when the statements are exposed as falsehoods). It is incredibly unlikely that he just happens to state talking points.

This whole thread personifies why I won't upgrade my membership.

And given how Bill coddles bigoted statements and their posters, I won't renew my paid membership.

And given how Bill coddles bigoted statements and their posters, I won't renew my paid membership.

It's not coddling, it's respect for free speech.

If you disagree with someone, shut them down by winning the argument. Showcase your ideas. Treat them like your fellow human being, not like the enemy.

It's not coddling, it's respect for free speech.

That is nonsense and you know it.

shut them down by winning the argument.

If they are posting talking points and running away, they don't care about arguments.

That is nonsense and you know it.

Now you are calling me a liar? Really?

I, like others before, am saying that you show preferential treatment towards people with conservative views, and DH them less frequently than those with liberal views. And if you did respect freedom of speech, you would not DH people for words that they type.

138 – "…Just Jack has pulled the classic "No True Scotman"…"
This greatly saddens me, despite the fact I did nothing of the sort. I can't comprehend why there are folks that insist on twisting most everything said on TMP, one way or the other.

I did not say anything about what "True Christians" will or won't do. I said there are two billion Christians on the planet and we don't all see things the same way. This is the reason we Christians have (as an example) Methodists, Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals, Adventists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, about the same number of Catholic denominations, and various others throughout the world.

I just can't understand how or why folks can say they believe in justice, tolerance, and equal treatment for everyone, but then can denigrate whole groups of people. I believe that every 'class' of people, however you choose to sort them, be it gender, race, religion, creed, etc…, has good and bad folks, and so the only way to get their true measure is to judge each person by their own actions. I really don't think any doctrine could be more simple and pure.

Regarding legislation on the topic of LGBT, I'll agree that the vast majority, if not all, the legislation you count as anti-LGBT is sponsored by American Christians. But, and this is further proof of what I stated above, which President of the United States has done more to advance the LGBT cause than any other, and what religion is he? How about a certain female former Senator and Secretary of State? What is her religion?

There's just no denying that the vast majority of United States legislators fighting for LGBT rights are American Christians.

And someone please direct me to where I said American Christians were being oppressed, or said something racist. I simply said I couldn't believe that people would call out Christians, or Americans (and I did it as two separate, distinct categories) as if people in either (or both) of those categories all believe the same thing, and thus rate to be judged as one. To me this doesn't seem to comport with a liberal, enlightened outlook.

Alien – "pretty harsh labelling everyone sinners and – they/we are only sinners in the outlook of your particular religion, you know, that could be seen as a group attack…."

I don't believe it's harsh to label everyone sinners. The fact all humans are sinners is pretty much a tenet of every religion on earth; we screw up, but we're supposed to ask forgiveness and do out best. And if you're not religious, I don't think 'sinner' is a term that even applies, is it? Is there such a thing as sin in a non-religious context?

In any case, that wasn't the point of me calling anyone a sinner, and I had hoped that was clear in the context of what I said. For the Christians that do treat LGBT folks different than they treat other folks, the excuse they generally use for this behavior is that LGBT folks, by their actions, are going against the Lord, that they are sinning.

From my understanding, this goes directly against three key tenets of Christianity: 1) hate the sin but love the sinner; 2) because of what our Savior did for us, all are able to repent and be made clean in the eyes of the Lord, and 3) we are all sinners.

I didn't mean to get too heavily into religious doctrine, I really don't think it has any place on a wargaming forum (which it shares with this entire thread and the one that spawned it, amongst others), but since I am being accused of doing something that 'could almost be seen as a group attack,' I figured I should explain the context of my statement that we are all sinners.

All – All our wounds here are self-inflicted, and it doesn't have to be this way, and I can't help but think there is at least some sort of relationship between these types of storms and us not talking about wargaming. For my part, I have no problem with anyone having a problem with my opinions, I just beg you to verify they are actually my opinions, not a handy stereotype or something you twisted because it helps you accomplish whatever it is you're trying to accomplish.

I sincerely hope this is the first, last, and only time I comment on a wargaming forum regarding my religion or thoughts on various political or social aspects of humanity not related to wargaming. To me, what really sucks about these flareups is the ill will they generate, the fact these non-wargaming fights stir up deep emotions and seemingly force people to come down on one side or the other, and if they're on the other side of the divide, history shows we (the online wargaming community, which we've seen is mostly the same folks running around on three or four different sites) just don't get past it.

V/R,
Jack

But, and this is further proof of what I stated above, which President of the United States has done more to advance the LGBT cause than any other, and what religion is he?

As a history lesson and not a current day politics thing, I must point out that all past presidents and past vice presidents have been Christian. As are the current ones. That makes it impossible to make blanket statements linking Christianity to specific political tenets, because the vast majority of people on both sides of everything in the USA were and are Christian.

I, like others before, am saying that you show preferential treatment towards people with conservative views, and DH them less frequently than those with liberal views.

I do my best to be fair. I am sorry if you feel I am not.

And if you did respect freedom of speech, you would not DH people for words that they type.

That would turn TMP into Frothers. Do we really need every swear word and term of abuse here?

Rebel – "That makes it impossible to make blanket statements linking Christianity to specific political tenets, because the vast majority of people on both sides of everything in the USA were and are Christian."

Ahh, AMEN BROTHER! PRAISE THE LORD!!! Now we are getting somewhere. Although I must disagree, apparently it doesn't make it impossible. I mean, when you say things like:

"It is my opinion that Christians are terrible people for holding bigoted beliefs about the LGBT community and for using those bigoted beliefs to justify law in the USA."

It sort of seems like you make a blanket statement because your worldview is that all Christians think the same way, and then you take it a stop further by saying some very unflattering, dare I say, intolerant, things.

Now, I can appreciate that it's just so dawg-gone unfair. Let me say it again: it is just UN-ing-FAIR, that we Christians are on both sides of, well, every single issue on Earth. But please don't let that stop you from calling all of us terrible people with bigoted beliefs.

Now, if I was a betting man I'd wager we're about to see some sort of "I misspoke" moment, or "I didn't really mean that, I only said it to make a point." You certainly made a (my) point.

Thanks buddy, I owe you one. No, really.

Oh, and thanks for your unique insight on 'Merican politics and history…

V/R,
Jack

That would turn TMP into Frothers. Do we really need every swear word and term of abuse here?

Respecting free speech means respecting speech you do not like, including vulgarities, insults, politics, and religion.

It sort of seems like you make a blanket statement because your worldview is that all Christians think the same way, and then you take it a stop further by saying some very unflattering, dare I say, intolerant, things.

I was making an intentional blanket statement because Bill claimed "opinions" could not be group attacks. And it is quite apparent Bill was wrong about that. And naturally I do not think all Christians are that way.

I will respectfully disagree.

"And naturally I do not think all Christians are that way."

Naturally. I believe I covered that here:

"Now, if I was a betting man I'd wager we're about to see some sort of "I misspoke" moment, or "I didn't really mean that, I only said it to make a point." You certainly made a (my) point."

We'd all be more inclined to believe that, if not for your previous (and ongoing) statements…

But wait! Maybe you meant to say that sometimes context and tone are difficult to discern on the internet, and perhaps we'd all be better off if we refrained from perusing every TMP thread with the intent of identifying, then 'combating,' social injustices, with all the confusion and miscommunication we've seen accompany it due to the various political/social agendas involved.

And then we should probably state something about resurrecting dead threads (by starting a new thread) for the specific purpose of harassing a fellow member, trying various routes of attack, popping a new one in before the previous one has even fully failed, harassing the Editor, etc…, is a bad idea.

Hell, one might even say that we, the TMP community, just might be better off if we stuck to wargaming…

V/R,
Jack

The gaming thing is never going to catch on.

What purpose does all this serve?

This site offers an amazing opportunity for different folks from different parts of the planet, regardless of belief system, creed, culture, gender, race, sexual orientation or politic to come here for one reason, one common interest in this one wonderful hobby.
It is a disgrace that this opportunity is been gleefully destroyed because of this self righteous argument over (irony of ironies) prejudice and bigotry!

How in the name of all human intelligence and reason is the gross stupidity of this being lost here…

I, like others before, am saying that you show preferential treatment towards people with conservative views, and DH them less frequently than those with liberal views. And if you did respect freedom of speech, you would not DH people for words that they type.

Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't mean:

1: Anyone is going to listen to you.
2: Anyone is going to take you seriously.
3: Doesn't give you carte-blanche from any and all actions, reactions, repercussions, and consequences that may happen or arise as a result of you using "free speech"….

It's not that hard really….

3: Doesn't give you carte-blanche from any and all actions, reactions, repercussions, and consequences that may happen or arise as a result of you using "free speech"….

The irony of this part is that the people who were DH'd in this thread and the Holocaust denialism fracas were the ones who were providing reactions and repercussions. While the ones on Bill's side for both managed to avoid the DH with one or two exceptions. Almost as if there are more consequences for people opposed to Bill's vision of "free speech" than there are who support "free speech".

Rebel,

It's okay, I'd avoid me too. But let's address this:

"While the ones on Bill's side for both managed to avoid the DH with one or two exceptions."
This is a blatant, yet oft-repeated, falsehood. In the main, here's what actually happens:

1. Someone makes a comment somewhere on TMP, sometimes, even on a wargaming thread, but they didn't think through the potential repercussions and are totally dumbfounded when a fellow TMPer hangs them up on it.
*What I mean by thinking through the repercussions is: how could this possibly be looked at/twisted/turned by someone that's hoping to be able to make me look like a bigot on the internet? I bet I should qualify every single post with "I'm not a bigot, I love (list every minority/aggrieved group imaginable, though you're bound to miss one, and they'll get ya).

2. A TMPer, keenly on the lookout for anything that can possibly be purposefully misconstrued in the name of 'fighting the good fight' or 'protecting the little guy' on the internet (this was the best part of watching s get angry about Trench Raider reporting people; 'hey, that's my shtick, albeit I don't report it to the Editor until after I've called for backup'), spots a thread that can be turned into a Social Justice infraction.

3. Said TMPer sends a retort to the initial thread, sometimes weeks after the thread is dead, claiming the original poster is an intolerant bigot for posting something they didn't actually post, for 'dog-whistling' or using the 'bigot codeword' for something, or for simply belonging to a group which 's assure us are renowned for their bigotry (such as Christians).

4. The original poster is usually caught completely off-guard (I know I was) at the unexpected turn of events, because not only has he been 'outed' as a bigot by a fellow TMPer, but there's now a spotlight on him and a whole pack of s arrives to help beat him down. Just as a bonus, it may even make the leap to other websites, blogs, e-mails, and personal messages (if one is lucky).

5. The original poster now gets to decide on one of three courses of action: 1) apologize to the defenders of justice for the human rights violation; 2) try to ignore it; or 3) fight back.

For the record, ignoring it won't work, and whatever you do, don't go for option 4) which is the one where you try to talk to the s like normal, reasoned and reasonable adults to debate the point, make them see it from your point of view. You're only digging it deeper.

6. Assuming you don't apologize, the s begin complaining to the Editor that TMP is full of redneck, inbred American Christians, that the Editor is a member of the team, and the Editor only DHs members of the 'other' team. The only good news here is that the s may lose interest in the original poster with all their ing and moaning about TMP and its members being so backwards. Not likely though…

7. Frustrated that the Editor won't DH, ban, or ban the type of talk the original poster said (because, usually, he didn't say it), the s begin losing their forum discipline.

8. Having lost their discipline, the s begin breaking forum rules, such as harassing (following a guy from post to post to keep getting in his ass, starting new threads for the sole purpose of continuing the calamity), trolling ("I never said he's a bigot, I said that all Christians are bigots"), personal attacks, and of course the Nazi stuff eventually gets broken out.

9. The s begin getting DHed in droves because, seemingly, once one of them gets it the vast majority of the rest figure it's time to martyr themselves as well.

10. Then the Editor, who's conscious of the complaints about their team being DHed while the "crazy, nutjob 'wingers " don't get punished for stuff they didn't say, apparently feels obligated to DH someone on the "his" team, just so the s will stop complaining, even though they won't, and then the OFM will say it too just because it amuses him to keep stuff stirred up here.

So, yeah, actually more folks on "that" side get DHed than guys on "this" side, but it's not political, it's simply the fact the s can't believe it when everyone is not made to think the way they do, and they show their anger by breaking forum rules, which gets them DHed…

So Sjwalker38 gets DHed for 'name calling' by implying the biogts are 'low-lifes' (his opinion and something I also agree with), yet others are able to opine that members of the LGBT community have mental illness and nothing is done. Fair handed editorial decisions right there.

@ Just Jack – fair enough, I didn't take it as such, was just pointing out the way the thread was going it could be taken as such. :-)

So abwehrschlacht, you are equating being a low-life with having a mental illness?

We might say that calling someone a low-life is objectively denigrating them? Are you saying the same is true of mental illness? Because you say someone has a mental illness that is an insult?

"Because you say someone has a mental illness that is an insult?"

No, it could be a statement of fact if indeed they were mentally ill. Though why it needed pointing out is subject to debate depending on circumstances.

But if it isn't actually true then we must question why it was said and what it means. In my experience it mostly means I don't like you or I strongly disagree with you. A form of personal attack as it were.

s

That term originated with the Gamergate people. Are you one of them?

The irony of this part is that the people who were DH'd in this thread and the Holocaust denialism fracas were the ones who were providing reactions and repercussions. While the ones on Bill's side for both managed to avoid the DH with one or two exceptions. Almost as if there are more consequences for people opposed to Bill's vision of "free speech" than there are who support "free speech".

Oh and I also forgot #4:

#4: Just because you have freedom of speech, doesn't mean you still have it, or are able to use it, (especially on a social media site, webpage, forum, or group site), especially after you agree to the standard TOS of said site, in which rules 1-3 apply even more so…..

Fiddly-foo! It's too dang humid to spray prime my BTR-50's….

#4: Just because you have freedom of speech, doesn't mean you still have it, or are able to use it, (especially on a social media site, webpage, forum, or group site), especially after you agree to the standard TOS of said site, in which rules 1-3 apply even more so…..

Yeah, the first amendment only applies to government actions, not voluntary private contracts, which is why it irritates me when Bill cries "freedom of speech" to protect bigotry while DH'ing people who denounce bigotry.

And use a gesso, it works fine on vehicles.

Pictors studio, I have no idea where you get the idea that I equate being a low life with having a mental illness. Stop trying to make an argument where there is none. I was commenting on the unfair editorial decisions that are being made. I work with people with mental illnesses, so why would I denigrate them?

Murphey said "Fiddly-foo! It's too dang humid to spray prime my BTR-50's ". Two choice's, either use a brush to undercoat them, or….. go to the pub and wait for the humidity to drop. Hope this useful hint helps, cheers, Dave

"That term originated with the Gamergate people. Are you one of them?"

Me? Never heard of Gamergate until it appeared in this thread, but just read up on it in Wiki. A couple thoughts:

1. The idea of 'culture warriors' and 'social justice warriors' has been with us for quite some time now, greatly predates 2014.

2. I was going to say, "what does video gaming have to do with this," but now that I'm up to speed on 'Gamergate' it's pretty clear your point was to insinuate I'm a misogynist. How clever, and in typical style.

3. Also in typical style, you concede defeat once again by not even addressing the substance of my remarks, but bringing out a whole new axis of attack. Kudos.

Just once I'd like to see an say, when they inevitably are shown to be full of , "wow, I was wrong. I've been talking in circles all this time, not addressing what was actually said, and you've been faithfully showing me the tragic fallacy of my arguments, but finally I get it. Furthermore, I don't know why I trotted out some new weak everytime you proved me wrong, but you've shown me the error of my ways and I've resolved to start staying on topic and addressing the points people make, rather than the points I hope they make."

Just once. Because, Dear Rebel, if you review the previous 500+ posts without the tinted glasses, you'll see:

1. A guy made a comment about 'taking out the trash,' which the Editor did not believe was a personal attack. 500 posts later the Editor still doesn't think it was a personal attack, and you could have arrived at that same point with 1 thread on the original post, or 1 PM to the Editor.

2. When you didn't win that fight, you changed to: a guy made a (in my humble opinion) dumb and entirely inappropriate comment about LGBT being a mental illness. The Editor doesn't see it the way, and the specific people (the rest of the TMP Editorship) don't see it that way. Could have been resolved with 1 post on the original thread or 1 PM to the Editor.

3. When you didn't win that fight, you changed to: the Editor allows TMP too much free speech, resulting in it becoming the last bastion of intolerance on the internet.

4. When you didn't win that fight, you changed to: Christians are terrible people (and others on your team went after Americans, specifically their illiberal views based off of inadequate education).

5. When you didn't win that fight, you changed to: the Editor is rooting for right wingers and picks on left wingers.

6. When you didn't win that fight, you changed to: TMP should be a free for all with no rules because that's what real free speech is.

7. When you didn't win that fight, you changed to: Jack is a misogynist.

So, what does it take to have you actually reflect inward just for a second, become self aware. I'm guessing you see yourself as a white knight of the internet, righting wrongs (well, at least fighting the good fight, as you're 0 for 7 on this thread). It may surprise you that that's not how others see you. I beg you, cut and paste this whole damn thread into a Word document, do a "find and replace" to change "Rebelyell2006" to "Bob," then read the whole thing again.

You'll probably wish you could have a sit down with good old Bob to show him the error of his ways. You can…

When you didn't win that fight, you changed to: Christians are terrible people (and others are on your team went after Americans, specifically their illiberal views based off of inadequate education).

Good job being obtuse, I said before that I made a deliberate group attack in order to prove to Bill that his notion of "opinons" not equaling "group attack" was false.

white knight of the internet

I know you cannot see this, but I am rolling my eyes really hard right now. If you want me to take you seriously, stop using those buzzwords.

The point from day 1 has been that Bill coddles bigotry and socially conservative speech. Its been happening as long as TMP existed, if you care to read old threads. And like during the Holocaust denialism fracas and other instances, he claimed to "respect free speech" while operating a website with restrictive terms of service and speech rules.

And with that, Just Jack wins the internet.

Who makes "social justice warriors" in 10mm?

Also can I say how weird it is to see terms invented on 4chan making it into casual conversation by people who aren't involved in that subculture?

Who makes "social justice warriors" in 10mm?

Just Jack seems to know all about them, so I'm sure he will fill us in when he returns.

"Who makes "social justice warriors" in 10mm?"
Thankfully no one. Regarding that, Wiki tells me 4chan is some sort of online forum, likes cat memes and child porn. I wouldn't know, I've never been there. Where are you going with this Ivan?

Here's a couple honest questions for you:

1) is this another "you're a misogynist/racist/(whatever)" attack, similar to Rebel's "are you a Gamergate guy" question?

2) is your post meant to bolster Rebel's floundering here?

Rebel – "Just Jack seems to know all about them…"
I know all about the ones that stalk TMP looking to find offense, even if they have to make something up to get there. I wrote out, in detail, your whole playbook (above).

Once again you've 1) failed to counter, or even address any of the points I made, and 2) started a new line of attack, which is apparently "Jack goes to 4chan," whatever that is supposed to mean.

Say hi to Bob for me.

Jack – incoming PM.

failed to counter, or even address any of the points I made

That's because all you have done is toss out buzzwords. I didn't realize you were being serious.

And who is Bob?

I was commenting on the spread of internet terminology, nothing more.

WOW!! How did I miss all of Page 8? But really……..

It jumped like 3 pages when I wasn't looking.

Ivan – Just sent you a PM.

Rebel – We've reached the point where you're out of new attacks already? But thanks for the throwaway line from 4th Grade about being serious. But this:

"And who is Bob?"

Made me laugh so hard I almost died. s are definitely the party of science, what with all that book-learnin' and such…

V/R,
Jack

Maybe some outfit could make up a batch of really cool LGBT military minis from different eras. Then we could all find out how the buying public responds… oh, wait… they'd look like all the other military minis we buy.

DAMN!!!

Now, I'm gonna have to look thru my lead pile and try to determine which ones are "different".

And IF I can determine their "sexuality" by looking at "them", do I paint "those" more "gaily"???

Careful there charared; you might offend some of your minis…or not

"And who is Bob?"

Made me laugh so hard I almost died. s are definitely the party of science, what with all that book-learnin' and such…

So how is literacy supposed to help me recognize the people who exist in your mind?

So I want to try and pull things together a little bit.

A few conclusions can be drawn here, that I think are good to consider:

1:
What you write may not be what other people read.
I said things in this thread that others took differently that I intended and others said things that I took differently than they intended.

Even if it's clear to you, it may not be clear to someone else.

2:
In the same vein, when tempers get heated, we are likely to seize on the smallest thing and focus on that, rather than the overall message or topic.

3:
Throw-away "snipes" embedded in a longer message can completely (and very quickly) derail the conversation, because someone WILL take offence to that and now a new circle of arguments begins.
This thread has seen it about LGBT people, about religious people, about other posters.

We're all better off for avoiding that.
That you have a legal right to not be arrested by the government for doing something, does not mean you should be doing that thing.

If you are still confused, imagine if a poster ended every post they made with "The Israeli/Palestinians have done nothing wrong". (whichever version will make you more angry).

Does that contribute anything? No.
Would it make you angry? Quite probably.

4:
The company you keep reflects on you, whether you intend it to or not.
In a lot of discussions, we take a "side" but we don't always realize that the side you pick means that get you lumped in with them too.

"Movements" are often very bad at policing their own, because it's easier to overlook "the little things" when you are up against someone else on the outside.
But those little things are a big deal to someone else.

This thread is an excellent example.

5:
Conversely, if someone else identifies with a side, it is quick, but unfair, for us to assume they fit the exact stereotypes of that side, that the talking heads wants us to imagine.

Not every conservative is a knuckle-dragging, racist misogynist who want to institute a theocracy and not every liberal is a workshy hippie who hates the constitution and wants to live on welfare.

There's reasons why people want you to hold those images in your head. Those reasons should concern us all.

6:
I will bet that not a single person actually changed their minds on anything, over the course of this conversation.
Quite possibly, it made us all dumber though.

7:
Group terms are often thought-terminating cliches.
If you say "religious conservative" in a liberal circle, it immediately conjures up a very specific image.
Likewise "Political correctness" has the same function in conservative circles.

Those terms mean something entirely different when used in the opposite situation.

When we use terms like that, we are deliberately trying to set the individual aside in favour of a ready-made punching bag that we can strike at.

When they come to dominate a discussion, you will find that everybody is addressing their preconceived ideas, not the person they are actually talking to.

I am willing to bet, if we delved into things, every conservative on this thread would have at least one or two ideas they had liberal views on, and every liberal would have at least one or two ideas they had conservative views on.

8:
No group has a monopoly on being excluding, of conducting witch hunts or on being easily offended. It just depends on what the hot buttons are.

9:
Please do not use my post as a spring board to attack another poster.
That'd make me sad.

So I got 4 of the BF M113's primed…and then did some puttering around on my table and getting stuff up in my paint queue…I have approx 200 15mm figures, 35 15mm vehicles, and 80 28mm figures waiting for their rendezvous with the paint brush…

This thread should not be on this site at all.