Was Earmuffs banned?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2017, 05:48 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(04-11-2017 03:32 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Sure, context informs actions -- but what context might you imagine between two strangers disagreeing would calling them a a pedophile work?

I hope that's directed to some other "you" and not "you Jerry" because I've been very specific about disapproving the offending actions and supporting the mods.

Quote:I value the idea of being who I am here. I think that honesty -- being the person you are -- is the reserve currency of communication.

I agree. I don't think I've said anything to anybody here I wouldn't say to their face in real life. Which actually brings up an interesting thought: maybe the "IRL" me is nothing but a facade and on line I am the me that I really am. Dude, pass the joint.

Quote:I've limited my communication with the banned member here because I reckon he either really is that obnoxious, or it's an act. In either case, where's the communication going to go?

Someone devolves to insult, here or IRL, I'll do the same thing: shut down any interactions unless and until the bullshit is resolved in a reasonable and rational manner.

I am quite the opposite, at least on a forum. I give everybody the benefit of the doubt times ten. It's real life that is my struggle and has some bad circumstances that I cannot control and can only manage as best I can. A forum? Shoot, I get in an argument and somebody calls me a whatever, a different thread on a different day, I'll be agreeing with that person and we'll be calling someone else a whatever; someone may piss me off today but not tomorrow. But I do know what you mean, there are a couple people I steer clear of not from my dislike of them but from their failure to recognize my brilliance. Yes

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like jerry mcmasters's post
04-11-2017, 05:59 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
He literally did ask for it. He didn't want to accept a lighter consequence. He had options open. A full ban wasn't one of them, he is the one who originated that.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2017, 06:11 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
Train roll on
on down the line

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2017, 07:01 PM (This post was last modified: 04-11-2017 07:05 PM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(04-11-2017 05:48 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  I hope that's directed to some other "you" and not "you Jerry" because I've been very specific about disapproving the offending actions and supporting the mods.

It was a specific you, because that's what you yourself wrote.

I know you've defended the staff in this, and that's a standpoint I agree with. But I was asking you whether you could imagine any context, IRL, where an argument could be assisted by an accusation of pedophilia.

I can't. I don't fight over words, but words such as those will certainly get my immediate shutdown. Would you bother to defend yourself against that? No, I don't think you would. I think you'd walk away, just as I would, perhaps muttering, but surely decided that the person who uttered them was not worth your time.

(04-11-2017 05:48 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
Quote:I value the idea of being who I am here. I think that honesty -- being the person you are -- is the reserve currency of communication.

I agree. I don't think I've said anything to anybody here I wouldn't say to their face in real life. Which actually brings up an interesting thought: maybe the "IRL" me is nothing but a facade and on line I am the me that I really am. Dude, pass the joint.

You're probably a little more complex than I am, then. I tend to take the words of folks at face value. Of course I have second-line thinking, but I'm unsure why there must be a disparity between who we are IRL and who we are online. And quite frankly, when I sense a discrepancy between those two presentations -- and I've experienced this recently -- I'm happy to ask questions. Once face-value has been put aside, it behooves me to do so, don'tcha think?

(04-11-2017 05:48 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  I am quite the opposite, at least on a forum. I give everybody the benefit of the doubt times ten. It's real life that is my struggle and has some bad circumstances that I cannot control and can only manage as best I can. A forum? Shoot, I get in an argument and somebody calls me a whatever, a different thread on a different day, I'll be agreeing with that person and we'll be calling someone else a whatever; someone may piss me off today but not tomorrow. But I do know what you mean, there are a couple people I steer clear of not from my dislike of them but from their failure to recognize my brilliance. Yes

Of course the Webz ain't real life. But I think it's fair to relegate those who don masks to the oubliette of distrust. An argument is one thing. A cunt is another.

Look at us now. We disagree, but we're doing so civilly, without either of us devolving into cunthood. Probably because we're being real, right? I'm good with that. I get the sense that you're being pretty straightforward with me. I trust that your critique/disagreement/what-have-you is neither false nor ugly.

If I thought you were chain-yanking, yeah, I'd back up a bit, and I don't think that's an unreasonable response.

Muffs got caught out for being a chain-yanker. Sorry about his bad luck, I guess. Maybe next time he should try just being online the way he is IRL. Because I'll bet dollars against your doughnuts that he doesn't behave this way IRL.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
04-11-2017, 07:10 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
Quote:But I was asking you whether you could imagine any context, IRL, where an argument could be assisted by an accusation of pedophilia.

The original argument that sucking the blood off of a baby’s penis after circumcising is sexually perverse.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2017, 07:32 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(04-11-2017 02:52 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(03-11-2017 09:32 PM)‘Dr H Wrote:  2) And there was provocation. On page 1 and again on page 3 of the original thread, SYZ -- whom I also rather like -- pretty blatantly suggested that Muffs was a homophobe and an racist. Those are also not words that I feel should be used lightly. And yet, again, they are.

I agree that they should not be used lightly either, however this is not against the TTA rules.

At the risk of continuing this thread beyond it's usefulness I offer this last point...

This was the OP of the thread that started this all:

Quote:Because this forum is full of young, middle-aged and old, rather mature, intelligent minded people I am making a thread with a rather non-mature title for my own amusement. (the last threads title was clickbait, this one's purely to titillate the senses. So no clickbait here.).

Anyway, I digress. The purpose of said thread, besides sensual stimulation, is that keen observers might have noticed I am approaching my (omg this song I'm listening to right now is the fucking tits) 20,000th post. So the question becomes, what do I make my 20,000th post? (seriously, this song is the bees pajamas.)

I feel like, on one finger it has to be something special like, but on the other toe it's like just a fucking number on an internet forum so who gives a fuck?

So I leave it up to you cunts.
(My bold)

This was the thread title EM was referring to:

Hoof her in the front-butt, maybe Hitler wasn't so bad, nigger-faggot


The OP of that thread started with this:

(23-10-2017 08:00 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Ok, now that I have your attention (title was clickbait because apparently, that's what the young people respond to these days)

(again my bold)

This was SYZ's first post in the "tickle the clit" thread:

Quote:Such as starting a thread that shows a level of intellect above that of an 8-year-old kid? Or even posting some comments that don't rely on homophobic and racist terminology for a few cheap thrills? Or even—as an extreme possibility—get your hand off your dick for 5 minutes?

(again my bold)

I'm going to leave it that.

...except to echo Old Man Marsh with my own beloved childhood song (that he just reminded me of) (Must have driven my parents nuts): (sorry Moms Sadcryface )




A friend in the hole

"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Captain Picard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unsapien's post
04-11-2017, 08:00 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
Why is it whenever Earmuffs says something offensive, he isn't the one being provocative? It's always the other person being provocative. Not Earmuffs, even though he's the one doing the offensive things to rile people up in the first place. The entire point of his shtick is to be provocative. So, you could absolutely say that Earmuffs was the one who started it 99% of the time.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GenesisNemesis's post
04-11-2017, 08:12 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(04-11-2017 07:01 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(04-11-2017 05:48 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(04-11-2017 03:32 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  Sure, context informs actions -- but what context might you imagine between two strangers disagreeing would calling them a a pedophile work?

I hope that's directed to some other "you" and not "you Jerry" because I've been very specific about disapproving the offending actions and supporting the mods.

It was a specific you, because that's what you yourself wrote.

Well I'm not getting you. What did I myself write? You seem to imply I think there is a context where one person calling another person a pedo "works" and is okay. I don't (though I don't believe in thought crimes...I don't give a damn what goes on between anyone's ears as long as if harmful it stays there).

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2017, 08:25 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(04-11-2017 07:32 PM)unsapien Wrote:  (again my bold)

You know Earmuffs has used the word "sand nigger" casually, right?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GenesisNemesis's post
04-11-2017, 08:43 PM
RE: Was Earmuffs banned?
(04-11-2017 08:12 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  
(04-11-2017 07:01 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  It was a specific you, because that's what you yourself wrote.

Well I'm not getting you. What did I myself write? You seem to imply I think there is a context where one person calling another person a pedo "works" and is okay. I don't (though I don't believe in thought crimes...I don't give a damn what goes on between anyone's ears as long as if harmful it stays there).

What you wrote is that, in essence, it's understandable that a person should maintain different personae, online, and real life. That, my friend, is context. What I'm saying is that Muffs would not say this stuff to someone who could actually box his ears.

That's context. I'm not talking about forum rules or your agreement with them. I'm talking about how some folks enjoy the anonymity of the 'Net to be dicks. I don't like such folk. His ban was because of the forum's rules. My criticism of his behavior runs a little deeper.

If his comments hadn't earnt him a ban, would you bother to comment at all on them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: