Search forums

Forums

Export thread

dave you do realize that deleting every mention of (redacted)

Jan 11, 2016#1

Charlie Don't Surf

is proving my point? Or if you honestly believe anyone would care about this stupid fucking moron hugbox enough to sue you for slander, you're dumber than I thought. Anyways, I'll see you crazy kids when I hate myself enough again.

Jan 11, 2016#2

Dave

In every case what did I send you as a message? Did I say, "Hey, man! We don't allow that kind of thing here!" Nope. My message EVERY TIME was, "Open another thread."

In other words, you can say what you gotta say, just not allowing you to spread shit in other threads. If you want to talk about Bowie doing what he did knock yourself out. I'm not stopping you from doing it. Just not there. I let you have your say about the man and left it up there, but the thread is a Brazelton, not a "rape culture" thread. If that's the conversation you want to have let's have it here![DOUBLEPOST=1452543258,1452543217][/DOUBLEPOST]And I HAVE been threatened with lawsuits before, hence the "free ranged chicken" comment.

Jan 11, 2016#3

sixpackshaker

Charlie Don't Surf said:
... when I hate myself enough again.

See you tomorrow.

Jan 11, 2016#4

DarkAudit

sixpackshaker said:
See you tomorrow.

How about never?

Jan 11, 2016#5

Covar

I have to ask, did Charlie do the redacting in the thread title or was that Dave? because I had zero idea what this was about until reading Dave's response.

Jan 11, 2016#6

Dave

He put that in there because he thought I was censoring every Bowie reference. I was...in other threads. All he had to do was start a new thread and we'd have been on our merry way. But he posted at least three more times in the RIP thread, got threadbanned from there, then he posted in the TIL thread. Since he was going to keep briganding, I shut that down as well, each time with a note to him that read, "Open another thread."

He apparently would rather shit on other threads than to start his own so he left. If he comes back he's welcome to continue discussing David Bowie's ALLEGED predilections here.

Jan 11, 2016#7

fade

I mean, I'll be tactful about it, but I don't disagree with him or that this should be addressed. The whole baby groupie thing has a lot more support than just some drunk mom somewhere. It was a whole culture, and not a proud moment in history by any means.

Jan 11, 2016#8

Dei

I think what really got me about that article was that it sounded like they were interviewing a teenager. and not a grown adult telling stories of her past.

Jan 11, 2016#9

Gruebeard

In case anyone's wondering, the hug rating I gave Chuck is supposed to represent "awww, poor baby"

If we had a good riddance rating I would have used that.

Jan 11, 2016#10

Tinwhistler

Dave said:
He apparently would rather shit on other threads

I think you hit the nail on the head about his posting in general.

Jan 11, 2016#11

Celt Z

fade said:
I mean, I'll be tactful about it, but I don't disagree with him or that this should be addressed. The whole baby groupie thing has a lot more support than just some drunk mom somewhere. It was a whole culture, and not a proud moment in history by any means.

Agreed. I wish it was just a dark moment in history, but it's unfortunately still a thing. From what I understand, Jared Leto been known to be involved with it. And James Franco was caught toeing the line. While it's not Roman Polanski or Bill Cosby levels of awful, it shouldn't be acceptable, either.

Jan 11, 2016#12

drifter

So Icarus is/was fair game, but David Bowie is off limits?

Jan 11, 2016#13

GasBandit

Aren't we under some sort of contractual obligation to make sure this picture shows up in any thread pertaining to this subject?

[DOUBLEPOST=1452555916,1452555721][/DOUBLEPOST]

drifter said:
So Icarus is/was fair game, but David Bowie is off limits?

I don't see where anybody said that. That said...

Dave said:
David Bowie's ALLEGED predilections

Here as in so many other situations, there's what you know, and what you can prove.
We know what we know.
Proof is kind of hard to come by, however, 40 years down the road and when nobody involved considers themselves a victim, regardless of statute.

Jan 11, 2016#14

Squidleybits

I read that interview and my heart breaks for that girl. She has no clue how wrong those "relationships" were. One questionable interview doesn't prove who she did or didn't sleep with of course, but the way that she thinks its ok it pretty scary.

Jan 11, 2016#15

Dave

drifter said:
So Icarus is/was fair game, but David Bowie is off limits?

Nope. Just not in every thread, which is what he was going to do. We can have the discussion.

Jan 11, 2016#16

Hailey Knight

Dave said:
Nope. Just not in every thread, which is what he was going to do. We can have the discussion.

I think he's taken issue with your wording from the other thread:

this discussion is over

Makes it not seem like he can have this discussion.

Jan 11, 2016#17

drifter

Dave said:
Nope. Just not in every thread, which is what he was going to do. We can have the discussion.

Deleting the post from the TIL thread would seem to indicate otherwise.

Jan 11, 2016#18

Bowielee

Well, I'm tired of trying to defend Charlie. Glad he's gone. He's a goulish troll who I will not miss.

Later guys, it's going to be some time before I come back. Too pissed.

Jan 11, 2016#19

Dave

drifter said:
Deleting the post from the TIL thread would seem to indicate otherwise.

In its own thread it's fine, but he was going to start polluting other threads in retaliation. So I stopped it before it happened.

Jan 11, 2016#20

bhamv3

I know I can't speak for everyone, but personally I'm ok with Dave nuking stuff that might risk a lawsuit. He already pays for the site, it wouldn't be right to ask him to pay legal fees or fines or whatnot.

Jan 11, 2016#21

Hailey Knight

I must have missed something. If Charlie pissed off Bowie, and Charlie's leaving, why is Bowie leaving?

Jan 11, 2016#22

blotsfan

Zero Esc said:
I must have missed something. If Charlie pissed off Bowie, and Charlie's leaving, why is Bowie leaving?

I missed his post and thought I was going to have to explain to you how death works.

Jan 11, 2016#23

Mathias

Jan 11, 2016#24

Dave

Bowie posted in the ... Bowie thread and I deleted it as well with a note that all discussion on the topic was going to be removed. He was mad that I left Charlie's initial post, but I thought that it was fitting in the thread. What I felt was NOT fitting was turning a Brazelton thread into a debate about rape culture.. That's this thread.

Jan 11, 2016#25

Mathias

So Bowie's gone and Charlie remains?

Damn. Almost got rid of Charlie.

Jan 11, 2016#26

CrimsonSoul

This is for CDS btw, not Bowie

Jan 11, 2016#27

DarkAudit

A more relevant discussion is why someone whose stated reason for their presence from the very beginning of this board was malice, and malice alone, has apparently gone without sanction.

He keeps taking his ball and going home once the blowback reaches critical mass. But to these eyes, nothing has been done to lock the door behind him, and he keeps coming back to take a big steaming dump on the dining room table in the middle of dinner.

I do not have the mod power, and perhaps that's a good thing. Because in this case, the body of work would warrant summary execution. So to speak.

There, I've said it.

Jan 11, 2016#28

Ravenpoe

DarkAudit said:
A more relevant discussion is why someone whose stated reason for their presence from the very beginning of this board was malice, and malice alone, has apparently gone without sanction.

He keeps taking his ball and going home once the blowback reaches critical mass. But to these eyes, nothing has been done to lock the door behind him, and he keeps coming back to take a big steaming dump on the dining room table in the middle of dinner.

I do not have the mod power, and perhaps that's a good thing. Because in this case, the body of work would warrant summary execution. So to speak.

There, I've said it.

Because unless he's directly harassing people, then who cares? If you don't like his posts, ignore him.

Jan 11, 2016#29

DarkAudit

Ravenpoe said:
Because unless he's directly harassing people, then who cares? If you don't like his posts, ignore him.

Because that just encourages him. He's admitted to getting off on having people ignore him.

And most important of all, I am not the one whose behavior is unrepentantly unacceptable. Why should I have to be the one to change to accommodate someone whose only purpose is disruption? No. Enough is enough.

Jan 12, 2016#30

Dave

Which is why I threadbanned him and made him open a thread on the very topic he wanted to discuss. Which he disliked, I might add. And I'll do it again in the future.

Jan 12, 2016#31

strawman

What makes me shake my head about Charlie's reaction, though, is that David Bowie worked very hard throughout his life to be who he felt he was at any given time, and was a very popular public idol giving other people permission to be who they were in a time where society was continuing to break free from its social mores.

He didn't argue with people about the acceptability for individuals to be who they felt they needed to be, and try to white knight for others. He simply set an example, and those who had and have been disenfranchised by society felt some level of acceptance due to his work.

Of course he made bad decisions along the way, and took advantage of others - but honestly, we all do at various stages of our lives, though perhaps to different levels of severity depending largely on external factors.

Dismissing his work and the effect he's had on society because he's done some terrible things along the way isn't wrong, but it essentially means you cannot accept anyone's work or contributions to society.

It's a very isolating, and lonely, standard to hold.

Jan 12, 2016#32

fade

EDIT: nevermind, not in the mood for debate this morning. Too much to do.

Jan 12, 2016#33

strawman

fade said:
EDIT: nevermind, not in the mood for debate this morning. Too much to do.

Aw, I was in the mood for a good debate! He didn't say what I've posited he's done but his actions certainly suggest that he wants to double make sure that no one praises David Bowie without being very, very, very aware of his actions.

All he said was:

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I'll celebrate the music and skip mourning the man.

But to then spend time posting repeatedly in the two threads about what a terrible person David Bowie was suggested, at least to me, that Charlie felt David Bowie's misdeeds greatly overshadowed his deeds.

I accept the strawman charge, though, because I am certainly interpreting his actions through my own filters and biases, and he has clearly stated that he celebrates some of David Bowie's work. It still makes me shake my head, but it is a strawman argument.

Jan 12, 2016#34

PatrThom

stienman said:
What makes me shake my head about Charlie's reaction, though, is that Bowie worked very hard throughout his life to be who he felt he was at any given time, and was a very popular public idol giving other people permission to be who they were in a time where society was continuing to break free from its social mores.

He didn't argue with people about the acceptability for individuals to be who they felt they needed to be, and try to white knight for others. He simply set an example, and those who had and have been disenfranchised by society felt some level of acceptance due to his work.

Of course he made bad decisions along the way, and took advantage of others - but honestly, we all do at various stages of our lives, though perhaps to different levels of severity depending largely on external factors.

Dismissing his work and the effect he's had on society because he's done some terrible things along the way isn't wrong, but it essentially means you cannot accept anyone's work or contributions to society.

It's a very isolating, and lonely, standard to hold.

We are going to need more clarification for when someone is discussing David Bowie v. @Bowielee in these posts, especially as it relates to @Charlie Don't Surf and censorship on the boards.
My brain hurts from context switching.

--Patrick

Jan 12, 2016#35

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
We are going to need more clarification for when someone is discussing David Bowie v. @Bowielee in these posts, especially as it relates to @Charlie Don't Surf and censorship on the boards.
My brain hurts from context switching.

--Patrick

Whoever said they're different people?

Jan 12, 2016#36

Dave

I didn't censor! I told him to open another thread and talk about it there! Sheesh!

Jan 12, 2016#37

Bones

what..the...fuck....can we go a week without a royal shit storm and people going SCREW YOU GUYS IM GOING HOME. in anycase im flabbergasted.

Jan 12, 2016#38

DarkAudit

It's far beyond time to give Charlie a permanent muzzle. There's only so many times you allow a guest to take a dump on the living room floor before you take action. And that action isn't pinching your nose and pretending the smell isn't there.[DOUBLEPOST=1452611153,1452611040][/DOUBLEPOST]

Dave said:
I didn't censor! I told him to open another thread and talk about it there! Sheesh!

Sanctioning a guy who is blatantly going "fuck your rules, and fuck you too!" isn't censorship.

Jan 12, 2016#39

strawman

PatrThom said:
We are going to need more clarification for when someone is discussing David Bowie v. @Bowielee in these posts, especially as it relates to @Charlie Don't Surf and censorship on the boards.
My brain hurts from context switching.

--Patrick

Oof, you're right. I'mma edit my post...

Jan 12, 2016#40

PatrThom

stienman said:
Dismissing his work and the effect he's had on society because he's done some terrible things along the way isn't wrong, but it essentially means you cannot accept anyone's work or contributions to society. It's a very isolating, and lonely, standard to hold.

There's "taking the moral high ground," and then there's outright Tumblrism.
Everyone has committed atrocities. Everyone. Yes, even Him. Perhaps the end justified the means, perhaps it did not, and one can go full Machiavellian, one can (conspicuously or inconspicuously) shun/deride the perpetrator or one can shockingly fall somewhere in between. How one chooses to reconcile deeds with people is a very personal thing, but one cannot expect another to automatically adopt the same stance merely because of how vehemently or how frequently one voices one's opinion.
Halforums is no hug box, it is a place where many intelligent people of differing opinions come to mingle while enjoying a lower requirement for social niceties due to the semi-anonymity. I rather enjoy it. I hope you do, too, dear reader. Let's all have opinions, but let's also respect one another and play by the rules and not be a shithead when we don't get our way, whatever it might be.

--Patrick

Jan 12, 2016#41

GasBandit

I will say that Charlie calling "hugbox" is hilariously ironic.

If he had his way, this would be the snuggliest hugbox of all the Internet.

Jan 12, 2016#42

Bones

GasBandit said:
I will say that Charlie calling "hugbox" is hilariously ironic.

If he had his way, this would be the snuggliest hugbox of all the Internet.

charlie is and always has been a fucking parody of himself and the average sjw. so when he uses terminology that derides his cause against others it always amuses us who live here in the real world. disclaimer-I am a horrible moderate take me with a grain of salt.

Jan 12, 2016#43

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
a place where many intelligent people of differing opinions come to mingle while enjoying a lower requirement for social niceties due to the semi-anonymity. I rather enjoy it. I hope you do, too, dear reader. Let's all have opinions, but let's also respect one another and play by the rules and not be a shithead when we don't get our way, whatever it might be.

--Patrick

As long as we can all agree that our opinion is right, and theirs isn't. Different definitions of "us" and "them" depending on thread, topic, time of day, period of the month, season and other circumstances, of course.

Jan 12, 2016#44

PatrThom

I realize in my post above (and in many others) I may sound like the kid trying to keep mommy and daddy from fighting, or like Rodney King ("Can we all get along?"), but my aim is not to try and convince y'all to avoid conflict, instead it is an attempt to say, "We are all adults! There will be unavoidable conflict! And as an adult sometimes it is your job to suck it up!"

--Patrick

Jan 12, 2016#45

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
Unavoidable Conflict!

This sounds like the lamest RTS game ever.

Jan 12, 2016#46

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
This sounds like the lamest RTS game ever.

"Well, I guess, if we have to." The Adventure Game!

Jan 12, 2016#47

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
This sounds like the lamest RTS game ever.

Realtime
Tumblr
Simulator?

--Patrick

Jan 12, 2016#48

Adam

But you don't understand, I just NOW realized that said celebrity may have possibly done something bad 40 years ago. This is the most important issue that I need to discuss on his death right now! This makes him a massive shithead and I am going to shout it loudly at passers-by in the hopes that the very temporary solidarity created as a result of his death is diminished for my own personal superiority.

Jan 12, 2016#49

GasBandit

Adam said:
But you don't understand, I just NOW realized that said celebrity may have possibly done something bad 40 years ago. This is the most important issue that I need to discuss on his death right now! This makes him a massive shithead and I am going to shout it loudly at passers-by in the hopes that the very temporary solidarity created as a result of his death is diminished for my own personal superiority.

Jan 12, 2016#50

fade

PatrThom said:
I realize in my post above (and in many others) I may sound like the kid trying to keep mommy and daddy from fighting, or like Rodney King ("Can we all get along?"), but my aim is not to try and convince y'all to avoid conflict, instead it is an attempt to say, "We are all adults! There will be unavoidable conflict! And as an adult sometimes it is your job to suck it up!"

--Patrick

Jan 12, 2016#51

Gruebeard

PatrThom said:
And as an adult sometimes it is your job to suck it up!"

Not just adults. Groupies, too.

Jan 13, 2016#52

Jax

DarkAudit said:
It's far beyond time to give Charlie a permanent muzzle. There's only so many times you allow a guest to take a dump on the living room floor before you take action. And that action isn't pinching your nose and pretending the smell isn't there.

I've wondered about this for a while too, but then I realized some ppl just like to have a resident troll around, it provides entertainment and/or an outlet for ourselves to vent our rage, roll our eyes, etc.

So in a way, we're all Charlie :drunk:

Jan 13, 2016#53

bhamv3

Je suis Charlie!

Jan 13, 2016#54

DarkAudit

bhamv3 said:
Je suis Charlie!

Jan 13, 2016#55

Hailey Knight

You know, in the past a certain Halforums member (who I won't name, but others might know who I'm referring to) was temporarily banned more than once, and later perma-banned (for a while), for going into threads and saying things to get a rise out of people. And no, it wasn't always direct attack, but the mods knew what he was doing and still considered it harassment. Lately Dave's been having to babysit Charlie here and there, but hasn't wanted to go the harsher route.

But after those harsher methods, that other Halforums member hasn't been harassing anyone.

I don't see why Charlie should've been getting special treatment.

Jan 13, 2016#56

Cajungal

Funny, I seem to remember people a small group of people pouting over said person getting banned, complaining that it was too harsh, threatening to leave or actually doing it. So it seems like Dave can't escape babysitting no matter what he does.

Jan 13, 2016#57

Bumble the Boy Wonder

But who watches Dave?

Jan 13, 2016#58

Bubble181

Bumble the Boy Wonder said:
But who watches Dave?

The Watchmen.

Jan 13, 2016#59

Dave

Damned if I do....damned if I don't. We lost a LOT of people when I banned "Chaz". There was more to it then than Charlie's situation - like the head-butting between Chaz and N_R.

But that's ancient history. Even by my standards.

Jan 13, 2016#60

PatrThom

Bumble the Boy Wonder said:
But who watches Dave?

--Patrick

Jan 13, 2016#61

Bubble181

Cajungal said:
no matter what he does.

This has always been true for people in a position of power. There will always be people who think you're too strict, and/or not strict enough. Just look at politicians flailing around the migration topic in Europe, or weapons in America, or whatever. Some want strict enforcement, some want lax acceptance, some sometimes want one, sometimes the other. People will disagree with decisions, and there will be kerfuffles. The only thing you can try is to make a line you feel comfortable with, communicate it clearly, and stick to it, even when you doubt yourself. The worst thing is seeming randomness - two people do the same thing, one gets banned, one doesn't. Of course, situations are rarely exactly the same - I don't think Chaz and Charlie are equal, though there are some similarities.

Jan 13, 2016#62

Adam

Charlie bans himself regularly. There's no reason for administrators to do it.

Jan 13, 2016#63

Bones

I for one support our flappy man hootie overlord!

Jan 13, 2016#64

PatrThom

Bones said:
flappy man hootie overlord!

Second-worst RTS ever.

--Patrick

Jan 13, 2016#65

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
Second-worst RTS ever.

--Patrick

SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS.

Jan 13, 2016#66

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS.

They come with the "Ventral Sacs" upgrade for free.

--Patrick

Jan 13, 2016#67

@Li3n

Dammit Dave... that post of mine you deleted also had a question about Under Pressure... now i have to look for the answer myself... like an animal.

Jan 13, 2016#68

Hailey Knight

Dave said:
Damned if I do....damned if I don't. We lost a LOT of people when I banned "Chaz". There was more to it then than Charlie's situation - like the head-butting between Chaz and N_R.

But that's ancient history. Even by my standards.

Sorry, Dave, you're right. There was a lot more going on back then than I at first remembered.

Jan 14, 2016#69

Mathias

Regarding ~~Bubbles'~~ Zero Esc's suggestion that a ban somehow altered my behavior. Nope. I didn't really care that I was banned. The only reason I came back was because Dave invited me back, and lifted it after NR's passing. I didn't even think about this forum after a few days of being banned 'till that email. I've mellowed out more due to finding myself more productive at getting a point across without being unabashedly blunt (as I had set out Chazwozel to embody). In other words, I've matured enough to understand humility and empathy. Keep in mind, I've been around since the beginning, and essentially throughout my mid to late 20's. It's not the ban that changed me, it's just growing the fuck up. Looking back 10 years ago at myself, all I can think of is the scene from Good Will Hunting, "And look at you... I don't see an intelligent, confident man... I see a cocky, scared shitless kid."

And you know what? Charlie is, in fact, a scared shitless kid. And I'll admit, recently I've let him get the best of me until I realized that I shit bigger than him, so why worry about what a little piss-ant says?

Jan 14, 2016#70

GasBandit

I'm still surprised I went all those years without getting banned, especially during the reign of Joe.

Jan 14, 2016#71

fade

GasBandit said:
I'm still surprised I went all those years without getting banned, especially during the reign of Joe.

Partly because you confined all your political bologna to one thread.

Jan 14, 2016#72

GasBandit

fade said:
Partly because you confined all your political bologna to one thread.

Well, there was plenty of spillover, and let's not pretend political bologna was the only thing I did that irritated people.

Jan 14, 2016#73

Bubble181

Mathias said:
Regarding Bubbles' suggestion that a ban somehow altered my behavior. Nope. I didn't really care that I was banned. The only reason I came back was because Dave invited me back, and lifted it after NR's passing. I didn't even think about this forum after a few days of being banned 'till that email. I've mellowed out more due to finding myself more productive at getting a point across without being unabashedly blunt (as I had set out Chazwozel to embody). In other words, I've matured enough to understand humility and empathy. Keep in mind, I've been around since the beginning, and essentially throughout my mid to late 20's. It's not the ban that changed me, it's just growing the fuck up. Looking back 10 years ago at myself, all I can think of is the scene from Good Will Hunting, "And look at you... I don't see an intelligent, confident man... I see a cocky, scared shitless kid."

And you know what? Charlie is, in fact, a scared shitless kid. And I'll admit, recently I've let him get the best of me until I realized that I shit bigger than him, so why worry about what a little piss-ant says?

Wait, what, me? I didn't say anything like that :confused:

Jan 14, 2016#74

fade

GasBandit said:
Well, there was plenty of spillover, and let's not pretend political bologna was the only thing I did that irritated people.

I didn't. I used the word "partly".

Jan 14, 2016#75

Mathias

Bubble181 said:
Wait, what, me? I didn't say anything like that

Doh! Zero Esc.[DOUBLEPOST=1452800985,1452800670][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:
Well, there was plenty of spillover, and let's not pretend political bologna was the only thing I did that irritated people.

Yeah, but you were never really bull-by-the-horns in any flame war. The irritating part about your bullshit has always been your calm demeanor, despite being more stubborn than a constipated mountain goat.

I find it ironic actually that, politically, I'm almost the opposite spectrum as you and I identify mostly on Charlie's turf. Yet, I'd rather have political discourse with you any day over Chuckles.

Jan 14, 2016#76

Bubble181

Mathias said:
Doh! Zero Esc.

Well, there's far worse to be compared to. At least you didn't confuse me with Charlie

Jan 14, 2016#77

GasBandit

Mathias said:
Yeah, but you were never really bull-by-the-horns in any flame war.

Well, I'm glad that the times I did aren't really remembered, then

Jan 14, 2016#78

Ravenpoe

Mathias said:
I find it ironic actually that, politically, I'm almost the opposite spectrum as you and I identify mostly on Charlie's turf. Yet, I'd rather have political discourse with you any day over Chuckles.

If we're putting Gas and Charlie on opposite ends of the political spectrum (even though I'm sure there's an overlap in values between the two) Charlie pushed me towards Gas's Ayn Rand* fantasy more than Gas ever did. And I'm as leftist as they come.

*I don't actually remember Gas ever liking Ayn Rand, but at least I didn't confuse her for Anne Rice this time.

Jan 14, 2016#79

Celt Z

Ravenpoe said:
I don't actually remember Gas ever liking Ayn Rand, but at least I didn't confuse her for Anne Rice this time.

....I'd be curious to read Lestat Shrugged.

Jan 14, 2016#80

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
If we're putting Gas and Charlie on opposite ends of the political spectrum (even though I'm sure there's an overlap in values between the two) Charlie pushed me towards Gas's Ayn Rand* fantasy more than Gas ever did. And I'm as leftist as they come.

*I don't actually remember Gas ever liking Ayn Rand, but at least I didn't confuse her for Anne Rice this time.

JCM vs Invader would probably be a better "left vs right" fight. Charlie trolls either direction just to troll, ad Gas is somewhere off on a tangent to the axis

Jan 14, 2016#81

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
If we're putting Gas and Charlie on opposite ends of the political spectrum (even though I'm sure there's an overlap in values between the two) Charlie pushed me towards Gas's Ayn Rand* fantasy more than Gas ever did. And I'm as leftist as they come.

*I don't actually remember Gas ever liking Ayn Rand, but at least I didn't confuse her for Anne Rice this time.

Charlie's the best friend the political right ever had. Often I've wondered if he wasn't just a giant walking intentional caricature meant to exasperate people away from leftist ideology.

As for me, Ayn Rand is ok. When it comes to political fiction, though, I prefer the older works of Heinlein (Especially The Moon is a Harsh Mistress). Libertarianism is a lot easier when you can chuck meteors at your oppressors

[DOUBLEPOST=1452808830,1452808509][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bubble181 said:
JCM vs Invader would probably be a better "left vs right" fight. Charlie trolls either direction just to troll, ad Gas is somewhere off on a tangent to the axis

It's more like this...

Jan 14, 2016#82

blotsfan

Jan 14, 2016#83

GasBandit

blotsfan said:

Hah, wow. Ouch.

Jan 14, 2016#84

fade

You're like the vegan of political opinions.

Jan 14, 2016#85

GasBandit

fade said:
You're like the vegan of political opinions.

Well, we ARE just better than everyone.

Jan 14, 2016#86

Hailey Knight

Mathias said:
Regarding ~~Bubbles'~~ Zero Esc's suggestion that a ban somehow altered my behavior. Nope. I didn't really care that I was banned. The only reason I came back was because Dave invited me back, and lifted it after NR's passing. I didn't even think about this forum after a few days of being banned 'till that email. I've mellowed out more due to finding myself more productive at getting a point across without being unabashedly blunt (as I had set out Chazwozel to embody). In other words, I've matured enough to understand humility and empathy. Keep in mind, I've been around since the beginning, and essentially throughout my mid to late 20's. It's not the ban that changed me, it's just growing the fuck up. Looking back 10 years ago at myself, all I can think of is the scene from Good Will Hunting, "And look at you... I don't see an intelligent, confident man... I see a cocky, scared shitless kid."

I didn't mean the ban had changed you, but I can see how my post looks like that. (It also was me trying not to call you Chaz, since you said before you didn't like that.) Just that because later there wasn't bannable stuff happening, bans didn't happen. But back when there was bannable stuff happening, there were bans. Hopefully that sounds like what I mean.

And I know Charlie temp-bans himself at times, but still. I think Dave handled this situation and the steinman thread appropriately. Charlie isn't concerned with the issues he mentions. Charlie's concern is Charlie, and he says the things he says to make our conversations about Charlie. The sooner we stop taking that bait, the better.

(This thread getting a pass because being about Charlie is actually on-topic for a change.)

Jan 14, 2016#87

strawman

I'm just sad he isn't around to tell us about all the bad things Alan rickman did.

Jan 14, 2016#88

Ravenpoe

stienman said:
I'm just sad he isn't around to tell us about all the bad things Alan rickman did.

Well, he was a white heterosexual male. That's pretty horrible.

Jan 14, 2016#89

GasBandit

Ravenpoe said:
Well, he was a white heterosexual male. That's pretty horrible.

A white CISGENDERED heterosexual male, which is nigh unforgivable.

Jan 14, 2016#90

Hailey Knight

stienman said:
I'm just sad he isn't around to tell us about all the bad things Alan rickman did.

I had the same thought.

Jan 15, 2016#91

Mathias

GasBandit said:
A white CISGENDERED heterosexual male, which is nigh unforgivable.

He exclusively dated one woman since 1965. Add the conservative value of monogamy to his list of horrible traits. Patriarchy!

Jan 15, 2016#92

DarkAudit

Mathias said:
He exclusively dated one woman since 1965. Add the conservative value of monogamy to his list of horrible traits. Patriarchy!

Speak of the devil yada yada yada...

Jan 15, 2016#93

Mathias

Forums