No! We're Not Oppressive.

[StringJunky]

The thread deserved to be locked but looking at this in isolation made me smile.

 

[Unity+]

The thread deserved to be locked but looking at this in isolation made me smile.

 

Locked discussion.PNG

I think we are just getting worked up over some troll who claims this site is too oppressive. You know how only crackpots claim oppression?

[imatfaal]

I think we are just getting worked up over some troll who claims this site is too oppressive. You know how only crackpots claim oppression?

 

"too oppressive" - we try not to be oppressive at all!

 

@stringjunky - we could change the title to "The thread allegedly on Moderators suppressing some discussion that never existed if you know what's good for you. All hail Chairman Phi!" But the juxtaposition of the title and the locked icon is funny - at least it made it to three pages.

 

@everyone On a more serious note - and this is moderatorish; we would prefer not to add another meta-discussion thread to the already large list. We don't want to lock this thread - but we would also not wish to rehash old material. Let this thread go the way of all things and pass away unless there is something new and interesting to add.

[StringJunky]

imatfaal, on 21 Nov 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:imatfaal, on 21 Nov 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:imatfaal, on 21 Nov 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

 

"too oppressive" - we try not to be oppressive at all!

 

@stringjunky - we could change the title to "The thread allegedly on Moderators suppressing some discussion that never existed if you know what's good for you. All hail Chairman Phi!" But the juxtaposition of the title and the locked icon is funny - at least it made it to three pages.

 

@everyone On a more serious note - and this is moderatorish; we would prefer not to add another meta-discussion thread to the already large list. We don't want to lock this thread - but we would also not wish to rehash old material. Let this thread go the way of all things and pass away unless there is something new and interesting to add.

The mods do a fine job I have intended nothing more than to share, as you say, the humour inherent in the juxtaposition between the title and locked thread icon ... nothing more. I agree, and never intended, that anyone should not take this as an invitation to discuss the thread of that title itself or matter related to it. I do hope I haven't annoyed or offended anybody.

Edited November 21, 2013 by StringJunky

[Unity+]

 

"too oppressive" - we try not to be oppressive at all!

 

@stringjunky - we could change the title to "The thread allegedly on Moderators suppressing some discussion that never existed if you know what's good for you. All hail Chairman Phi!" But the juxtaposition of the title and the locked icon is funny - at least it made it to three pages.

 

@everyone On a more serious note - and this is moderatorish; we would prefer not to add another meta-discussion thread to the already large list. We don't want to lock this thread - but we would also not wish to rehash old material. Let this thread go the way of all things and pass away unless there is something new and interesting to add.

Wait, why did you quote my post? I don't see the response to what I said in the post.

[Phi for All]

Wait, why did you quote my post? I don't see the response to what I said in the post.

 

He quoted the part about the mods being "too oppressive", to comment that we don't like being oppressive at all. And yes, I'm sure he knows it was the troll's claim. No foul.

[s1eep]

I think we are just getting worked up over some troll who claims this site is too oppressive. You know how only crackpots claim oppression?

I'm right in saying that calling things nonsense, which in itself as a word, in conversation, is nonsense; it could be described as stupidity--it is perversity. You're just calling names and continuing, plus, any unorthodox idea, by members as well, is often laced with civil looking, sort of sophisticated insults. What is the word crackpot? What is it meant to mean? That he is insane? Why is he insane? Or why, perhaps, are you not? It's the simplest most stupidest kind of response, and it's stupid in a perverse, 'mind-controlling' way (you just want to stop people looking at it, you don't really have an opinion; you are the true troll, but this isn't a good thing--people have freedom to believe and you, on some occasions, oppress free belief). You are the crackpot. You're just trying to be popular; it is the same as bullying, you're doing stupid egotistical perverse things to someone just for the thrill--and then I guess you thrive off of your masculinity. I dislike the way you act because it is stupid, not because I am offended by you, but because I'm offended sometimes by stupidity--because it is perverse, and rotary, I don't like it. (It is as disgusting, to me, as pedophilia).

Edited November 21, 2013 by s1eep

[iNow]

S1eep - Since it seems you may be unaware of this point, I'd just like to point out that you visit here voluntarily, nobody is forcing you to participate in this community if you hate it so much, and you are free to leave at any time for any reason.

 

More plainly... There is no need to continue subjecting yourself to such nonsense, stupidity, perversity, unorthodoxy, insult, insanity, mind-control, trolling, oppression, crackpottery, bullying, egotism, disgust, or any of the other awful things you've just cited in the post above.

 

EDIT: On another note, mods should IMO seriously consider locking this thread now before it ultimately spirals downward (as is almost certain to happen sooner rather than later).

Edited November 21, 2013 by iNow

[ydoaPs]

EDIT: On another note, mods should IMO seriously consider locking this thread now before it ultimately spirals downward (as is almost certain to happen sooner rather than later).

I'm fine with letting s1eep make himself look even worse by making posts like that. If he tries to make this thread about the electric universe or whatever pseudoscience garbage he's on about, then we'll close it.

[John Cuthber]

It would probably be better all round if, rather than trying to do that, S1eep read up on the definitions of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

etc.

[StringJunky]

iNow, on 21 Nov 2013 - 3:52 PM, said:

EDIT: On another note, mods should IMO seriously consider locking this thread now before it ultimately spirals downward (as is almost certain to happen sooner rather than later).

Yes. I think they should.

 

I should have thought where this might lead but I didn't think. For that I apologise.

[iNow]

Muck raker!

[Phi for All]

I should have thought where this might lead but I didn't think. For that I apologise.

 

It's OK. Hypervalent_iodine wanted to close it after your OP, which would have been hilarious. A triple shot of irony.

 

We should have let her. For that, I apologize.

[swansont]

I'm right in saying that calling things nonsense, which in itself as a word, in conversation, is nonsense; it could be described as stupidity--it is perversity. You're just calling names and continuing, plus, any unorthodox idea, by members as well, is often laced with civil looking, sort of sophisticated insults.

On the contrary, calling nonsense nonsense is perfectly reasonable. Most non-mainstream ideas here at least have some connection to accepted science — it could be based on a mistaken notion that quantum mechanics must be easily understandable, or that absolute time should exist, or similar non-evidence-based or otherwise flawed rejections of mainstream science.

 

But sometimes posts simply have no such connection. There is no kind of coherent argument or model presented. It is literally lacking any sense. It is perfectly appropriate to call it nonsense. Despite any emotional attachment one might have for the idea behind it, such a label is not a personal attack, nor is it the equivalent of calling someone stupid.

 

What is the word crackpot? What is it meant to mean?

I am not a fan of using the word on the forums, since it is a comment about the person and not the material — it shouldn't be an immediate response to an argument, for example — but despite this there are times when it's not inappropriate. If, for example, one were to attempt an appeal to authority, pointing out that the authority is in fact a crackpot wouldn't be improper.

 

I don't like it. (It is as disgusting, to me, as pedophilia).

Where does hyperbole appear on the list?