Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
You are way too kind.
Still, every ideology can be dangerous and any conduct considered offensive - or at least extremely weird - by someone. And this one never been good at understanding people or grasping implicit assumptions about proper behaviour.
- She refers to herself as "this one", implicitly supporting the use of "This Troper" in mainspace.
- Her handle makes people think "beholderess" is an actual word.
- She posts in the Russian thread, you can't prove she's not insulting other tropers.
- Her signature is creepy.
- A good argument can be made for her banning, she just said so.
This one once used t think that it is acceptable or even requiredIt isn't? How do you refer to female beholder then?=)
A good point. And this one had typed a few swearwords in Russian. Granted, it was in a thread specifically made for that purpose, and with numerous disclaimers, but the fact remains.
Creepy in what way, if this one might ask? This one is genuinely interested.
True, true, you've caught this one here
^This one does not think that anyone implied that. She suspects that she was simply used as an example, of, ahem, non-extreme poster, or at least she hopes so. It did not need to be specifically her - just a random handle that jumped in someone's mind. But still this one apologises for misunderstanding.
gentlemanly, but more casually condescending.
Sure, I get that. That's the problem with not considering all opinions equal. If I recognize superiors (a necessary precondition for taking a role model to inspire cultivation of virtue), then Hierarchy's Box is open, and all the evils in the world come out (from a modern point of view).
However, I sincerely agree with the philosophers I do and disagree with most of the fashionable ones, so I can't be other than who I am unless someone proves me wrong by defining a form of progressivism that's both self-consistent and empirically true.
Your previous statement
is a prime example: whether or not you intended it, many will read that
post as "I'm a Christian Gentleman, of course those liberals would be offended."
Right, because they haven't read up on 19th century social history. Dandies were men of common origin who took advantage of the social leveling done in the name of liberty and equality to test the question of whether, in the new bourgeois state, any man enjoyed the liberty to make himself an aristocrat if he cultivated his mind, put on fancy clothes, and lived by old-fashioned values of Christendom.
Well, today the answer should be obvious. Freedom of speech does not include freedom from being fired from a job or punished by a university for voicing old-fashioned views, so the internet is an opportunity to relax rather than censor myself.
offensive - or at least extremely weird - by someone. And this one never
been good at understanding people or grasping implicit assumptions
about proper behaviour."
Any potentially dangerous ideology is made safe with respect to the implications, and moderation. For example, a person could believe that people are better off dead, but respect the fact that they could be wrong, and thus never actually hurt anyone.
You have demonstrated in what you have said that you are wise to implications of ideas, and are very careful about who you listen to and what you choose. So in that respect, you score highly.
That said, it's true that others can take offense to another one's beliefs, but this is also lessened by respect to those listening, and care to how things are said. (Which you also handle very well.)
equal. If I recognize superiors (a necessary precondition for taking a
role model to inspire cultivation of virtue), then Hierarchy's Box is
open, and all the evils in the world come out (from a modern point of
view).
However, I sincerely agree with the philosophers I do and
disagree with most of the fashionable ones, so I can't be other than who
I am unless someone proves me wrong by defining a form of progressivism
that's both self-consistent and empirically true."
This sounds like you're not only admitting to being condescending, but that you feel you are in the right to be so. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, though, and assume I'm simply misreading it. The thing is, you can disagree with others' opinions without coming across that way, and I think doing so would save you and the forums a lot of unnecessary trouble.
I notice, however, that you seem to have missed the most important part of my last post: The part about the need for introspection, of realizing how you bring some of these problems upon yourself, and of coming up with a way to avoid some of that in the future. Eddie was quite clear in that you have this few weeks to come up with a way to participate in the forum community without being a massive pain in the ass for the moderators to deal with.
Once again I'll say that I do not believe the responsibility for all this drama lies solely with you. However, if one person is constantly at the center of a shit-storm, it is highly unlikely that they have perfectly clean trousers. And keep in mind that wherever the blame might lie, it's the moderators and Eddie that have to clean up at the end of the day. If you are unable or unwilling to accept the responsibility for your portion of the drama that surrounds you, and take steps to fix it, I fear that your chances of rejoining the community on a permanent basis are slim.
As I understand, Plato's concept of aristocracy does not resemble the usage of the term in the past millennium. In fact, Plato's concept had nothing to do with Christianity, while the more recent usage had nothing to do with personal behavior or refinement. Could you clarify what you mean by this statement?
(Also, I am under the impression that flaunting one's adherence to "Christian values" is Pharisaical, and counter to healthy Christian behavior?)
As to the self-righteousness, see my previous post in this thread.
Regarding Tongpu, etc., part of that has to do with his views being so far out there that people are more likely to shrug it off. However, he's hardly the only one -- I mean we've got Savage Heathen wanting to kill cops, Deboss being Deboss and unrepentantly dropping barbs everywhere (which I think is funny, but I can see how he could incense people very easily), and there was that thread where something like a third of the OTC regulars expressed a desire to slaughter Republicans and/or nuke religious sites.
Yeah, Myr. The whole thing is pretty surreal when Anglo atheists call me racist for thinking Islam is wrong, then I go hang out with King Friday (who's Arabic) and she complains of how rude and stupid those people are.
In any case, I've mellowed almost completely on Islam. I respect their cultures, which are conceived as having a contract with God passed to them through Muhammad, as a specific example of the class that includes Christendom, Hindustan, the Middle Kingdom, and so on. "Each contract of each particular society is but a clause in the great
primaeval contract of eternal society, linking the lower with the
higher natures, connecting the visible and the invisible world,
according to a fixed compact sanctioned by the inviolable oath which
holds all physical and all moral natures, each in their appointed place." By this reckoning, by presupposing materialism a progressive state stands against all cults/cultures with their idealism.
than insult tropers behind their backs.Sirrah, if you knew me at all, you would know how unjust it is to accuse me of wearing soiled clothes. Please present an apology post haste.
@sine: Yes, these are different things. "Aristocracy" means "rule by the best". It implies an absence of hereditary privilege so that social hierarchy can be based on the natural superiority of those who choose to work most at it and natural inferiority of the slothful. Nobility was hereditary. So the idea of the dandy was to take advantage of the abolition of hereditary classes to see if the new bourgeois state would allow you the liberty to adopt a lifestyle that would have, in the past, been "above your station" or whether it would punish you for flouting equality.
(Also, I am under the impression that flaunting one's adherence to
"Christian values" is Pharisaical, and counter to healthy Christian
behavior?)
Agreeing with that statement would be tantamount to saying that the lesson of the English Civil War was "the Quakers were right." I don't buy that God is displeased with Cavaliers and only pleased with plain, somber followers. If you have to give up the liturgy and Gothic cathedrals and J.S. Bach to be a good Christian, it becomes a grim Pascal's Wager scenario.
@Bee: Hi Pykrete! I think you summed it up nicely.
It is not about liturgy or cathedrals that I speak. The Kingdom of Heaven is not concerned with such. Rather, I ask you about matters of the heart.
Should a Christian identify another as spiritually lost, are they then to heap scorn upon them? To drive them further into darkness with condescension? May it never be so! Rather, it is good to reach out to another as a guide, not with sanctimony, but honest humility.
to heap scorn upon them? To drive them further into darkness with
condescension? May it never be so! Rather, it is good to reach out to
another as a guide, not with sanctimony, but honest humility.
Yes, I certainly agree with this.
I don't think that fancy clothes in themselves contradict morality, yet excessive focus on them does. Virtue and wealth, virtue and your social hierarchy standing are not directly dependent on each other. Any linking of them is fallacious.
I 'unno, it just gave me the image of a dystopia in which not being a "good example" gets you publicly humilliated or destroyed. And since I gotta reach to come up with these reasons, I went with that.