Russ the Bigot

1235

Comments

  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    I would have predicted that, due to the mysterious ways of the universe, Russ would be posting a lot less and Moyessa would be posting a lot more. Kind of funny, like how you never see Santa and Satan in the same picture at the same time. They probably have nothing to do with each other.
  • Leaf wrote: »
    I would have predicted that, due to the mysterious ways of the universe, Russ would be posting a lot less and Moyessa would be posting a lot more. Kind of funny, like how you never see Santa and Satan in the same picture at the same time. They probably have nothing to do with each other.

    I don't know about that. I think they probably used the same lobotomist.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    We don't overhost or plank or ban people we don't like. If we did, there would be several blessed deletions around here.
    Not about like or don’t. The behaviour he was called for on the White Supremacy thread is the behaviour he has exhibited for years.
    I understand things change, I’m just saying he was always a troll.
    You either did not notice or noticed but thought it was within bounds.
  • This is getting dangerously Styxy.

    We're not blind, and we're not stupid. Make of that what you will.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    This is getting dangerously Styxy.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    We're not blind,
    Yes you are, because everyone is. To some issues and/or to some degree, every being who has demonstrably existed has this weakness.
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    and we're not stupid.
    Never said you were. And that might be part of the reason.

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    We're not blind,
    Yes you are, because everyone is.
    Everyone apart from lilbuddha, that is.

  • Dafyd wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    We're not blind,
    Yes you are, because everyone is.
    Everyone apart from lilbuddha, that is.
    There is a whole 'nother thread for that, knock yourself out.

  • But you never have to wonder why that's the case.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    But you never have to wonder why that's the case.
    There are, IMO, multiple reasons for why that is the case. Some are my fault, some are not. Some are a mix. Not sure about the current state of that thread, because I haven't looked at it after my last post. And this is my last post about that thread on this thread.
    Russ deserves his own, I'll not cheat him of that.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What am I missing?

    A sense of humour ?
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    He has decided that I am not worth responding to at all.

    You went through a bad patch, old rodent, where your style became one of snarky one-liners that weren't worth responding to. You're getting better...

  • Russ wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What am I missing?

    A sense of humour ?
    Yeah, racism is so funny.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    That Russ has not changed his behaviour and only now gets called for it, says something. You tell me what that is if it is not a miss.
    It's a miss by your personal standards. Which we have already discussed ad nauseam.
    Russ’ posting hasn’t changed. You are now calling him on it.
    What am I missing?

    The fact that we’ve created a new board with different posting rules. I would have thought you’d have noticed that, but apparently not.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What am I missing?
    A sense of humour ?
    Russ went there.

  • Russ wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    He has decided that I am not worth responding to at all.

    You went through a bad patch, old rodent, where your style became one of snarky one-liners that weren't worth responding to. You're getting better...

    Fuck right off.
  • Russ wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What am I missing?

    A sense of humour ?

    Oh, where did you learn about those? Did "Bigot Monthly" have an article?

    For those reading along at home, I think we've just caught a glimpse of Schrodinger's Bigot - he (and the male of the species is sighted far more often) decides whether or not his bigotry was a joke depending on the reaction.
  • For those reading along at home, I think we've just caught a glimpse of Schrodinger's Bigot - he (and the male of the species is sighted far more often) decides whether or not his bigotry was a joke depending on the reaction.

    The yellow-bellied troll-arse Schrodinger's Bigot is the most common kind in temperate discussion boards.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    It’s the go-to of the bully “I was only joking.”
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    It’s the go-to of the bully “I was only joking.”
    Among the Dead Sea Scrolls a manuscript of Genesis has been discovered that reads, Genesis 4:8, And it came to pass that Cain rose up against his brother, and said, Don't you have a sense of humour, and slew him.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Quotes file.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Russ wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    What am I missing?
    A sense of humour ?
    Russ went there.

    Russ lives there.
  • I appreciate the sealion reference. I have actually learned something today.

    I don't read Russ enough to discern if he is this kind of troll. I don't read him at all. But SusanDoris seems to interact in this sealioning way. Although I've never thought she was trolling, just incapable of understanding how wrong she is. But she is always unfailingly polite, and yet completely dismissive of points of view she doesn't comprehend.

    Anyway, not meaning to derail. Let's continue giving Russ a reach-around by discussing what a prick he is.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    I don't read Russ enough to discern if he is this kind of troll. I don't read him at all.

    Your view is an uninformed one, then ?
  • @Dark Knight
    Russ said that your view is uninformed.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Russ wrote: »
    I don't read Russ enough to discern if he is this kind of troll. I don't read him at all.

    Your view is an uninformed one, then ?

    To be fair, it doesn't take much experience of dogshit to avoid it in an ongoing way afterwards.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    @Dark Knight
    Russ said that your view is uninformed.

    I see what you did there ... and I like it! 😂
  • I think we should give @Russ some credit for his recent breakthrough in the field of theology.

    It starts with this:
    Russ wrote: »
    1) everyone has some notion of what "sin" means, and no-one doubts that some acts are sinful (even if they wouldn't use the word). But different people mean different-but-related things by the word (e.g for some sin is defined by the revealed will of an inscrutable God, whereas an atheist might deny God but still believe that sin in the sense of moral wrongdoing exists)

    And then gets paired with this:
    Russ wrote: »
    Racism isn't well-defined. It's a word that people use in different senses.

    For some it's little more than an expression of political disapproval on behalf of ethnic minorities. If on balance you're in favour of something (such as a quota system) then you won't describe it as racist (whether or not it fits someone else's definition).

    For some it means a belief in racial superiority and actions motivated by such a belief.

    For some it's actions motivated by racial antagonism.

    There are many variations in usage.

    I'd put it to you that unless there is some attribute that all racist acts possess and all non-racist acts do not possess then there is no such thing as racism.

    That's huge. According to @Russ because "different people mean different-but-related things by the word" sin therefore there is no such thing as sin!!! That seems to be pretty huge, theologically speaking.

    Either that or @Russ will insincerely advance bad faith arguments he doesn't really believe in order to sow confusion, but how likely is that?
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I think we should give @Russ some credit for his recent breakthrough in the field of theology.

    It starts with this:
    Russ wrote: »
    1) everyone has some notion of what "sin" means, and no-one doubts that some acts are sinful (even if they wouldn't use the word). But different people mean different-but-related things by the word (e.g for some sin is defined by the revealed will of an inscrutable God, whereas an atheist might deny God but still believe that sin in the sense of moral wrongdoing exists)

    And then gets paired with this:
    Russ wrote: »
    Racism isn't well-defined. It's a word that people use in different senses.

    For some it's little more than an expression of political disapproval on behalf of ethnic minorities. If on balance you're in favour of something (such as a quota system) then you won't describe it as racist (whether or not it fits someone else's definition).

    For some it means a belief in racial superiority and actions motivated by such a belief.

    For some it's actions motivated by racial antagonism.

    There are many variations in usage.

    I'd put it to you that unless there is some attribute that all racist acts possess and all non-racist acts do not possess then there is no such thing as racism.

    That's huge. According to @Russ because "different people mean different-but-related things by the word" sin therefore there is no such thing as sin!!! That seems to be pretty huge, theologically speaking.

    Either that or @Russ will insincerely advance bad faith arguments he doesn't really believe in order to sow confusion, but how likely is that?

    Or he's too fucking dumb to experience the cognitive dissonance.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    IAccording to @Russ because "different people mean different-but-related things by the word" sin therefore there is no such thing as sin!!!

    I refer you to premise 1) of the OP. "No-one doubts that some acts are sinful".

    Reality is. Nothing about the way that the word "sin" is used changes the reality that those using the word are aiming to describe.

    That people fall short is pretty much a fact. I do, you do.

    I'm trying to talk about use of language. Arguing that the idea of a one:one correspondence between some aspect of the reality of human behaviour and the usage of the word "sin" is not true. Although that model might be adequate for a word like "dog"...



  • No, you're trying to obfuscate the clear conclusion we have that many of your arguments are rooted in racism.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    When is a dog a wolf?
    Are foxes dogs? (Are lions cats?)

    The problem is Russ is trying to argue that language ought to work with a 1:1 correspondence between word and aspect of reality which is just not true.
    (Aristotle's example is the word 'healthy', which does not mean the same quality as applied to people and as applied to diets or climates.)
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Dafyd wrote: »
    When is a dog a wolf?
    Are foxes dogs? (Are lions cats?)

    The problem is Russ is trying to argue that language ought to work with a 1:1 correspondence between word and aspect of reality which is just not true.

    Seems to me that most of us know the word "dog" from an early age (? 2 ? 3 ?). And that we learn it by establishing just such a correspondence between the sound of the word "dog" and the sight of or picture of a dog. Learning a further correspondence with the letters D-O-G usually comes a little later (? 4 ? 5 ?).

    You're right that later we learn other related meanings. "Dog" for a male canine and "bitch" for a female. The "family" of all dog-like animals. And to draw analogies between human and canine behaviour. He persisted, doggedly.

    In a way that possibly wouldn't apply to a word like "giraffe"...

    But where a word like "dog" has multiple meanings, normally it's clear from context which sense is intended.

    That's not the case where Doc Tor says
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    the clear conclusion we have that many of your arguments are rooted in racism.

    Which meaning of "racism" is intended here, Doc ? Or are you pretending that there's only one ?



  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Russ wrote: »
    trolling
    troll
  • Russ wrote: »
    That's not the case where Doc Tor says
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    the clear conclusion we have that many of your arguments are rooted in racism.

    Which meaning of "racism" is intended here, Doc ? Or are you pretending that there's only one ?

    Pfft. Nice try, Racist McRacistface.
  • If I can shove the mashed potatoes around on my plate enough, nobody will noticed I haven't eaten any.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    we learn it by establishing.. ..a correspondence between the sound of the word "dog" and the sight of or picture of a dog.

    When we're older, ISTM that we learn the meanings of words either by encountering a definition. Or by a process of picking up meaning from context.

    So no @Dafyd, what I'm expecting is a definition. It is Doc Tor who seems to think racism is a thing that corresponds with the word.

    I have, in fact, picked up from context the meaning of the word "racist" as it is commonly used on these boards. It's a term of condemnation for those who disagree with one's views on a matter that has some connection to race. With that meaning, Doc Tor is entirely correct. I am indeed a racist in his eyes and he in mine. He thinks people's moral rights depend on their skin colour; I don't. We disagree. So he's a racist.

    You may think that's a pretty stupid meaning. I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But that's how the word is used.

    The question you should be asking is why Doc Tor doesn't want to give me his definition.
    Why won't he tell me what he means ? Well, Doc ?

    The answer's pretty obvious. In many circles, racism - in the sense of bullying people about their skin colour, the sense that Commandment 1 rightly prohibits - is not unreasonably seen as a Bad Thing.

    I am not, never have been, and hope never to be a racist in that sense.

    But Doc Tor wants to take all the negative emotional weight that belongs to that meaning and apply it to a different meaning of the same word.

    It's a dishonest use of language, an abusive usage, of the type that I'm (not coincidentally) trying and failing to get people to think about in a different context. And he doesn't want to admit he's doing it.

    It took me years to cotton on to this particular bullying trick.
  • Shorter Russ:

    People use the word "racism" to mean different things, therefore racism doesn't exist!

    Also people use the word "sin" to mean different things, therefore sin is a universally understood concept!
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    edited October 2019
    LOL, is he still doing his "You can't define exactly what a racist is, therefore I'm not one" schtick?
  • No, he's progressed (regressed?) to "You can't define exactly what a racist is, therefore you're one."
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Ah.
  • Apropos of nothing, can anyone define what a cretinous cockwomble is?
  • Is it similar to a shambolic wankgannet ?
  • Is it similar to a shambolic wankgannet ?

    Possibly, but with more malevolence and less incompetence.
  • Ahhh, a wicked shitgibberer
  • Ooh, my vocabulary is growing!
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Not with anything you’re likely to use next time you preach.
  • Depends whom you're preaching to, doesn't it? :mrgreen:
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    It does make ‘brood of vipers’ seem a little tame.
  • Try and slip in "cockbothering arsebadger" into your next homily, and see if anyone notices.
This discussion has been closed.