Sunday, May 29, 2016

NEW PALTALK ROOM

Room title suggestions:

Speech as Free as humanly possible

Free Speech Free Spirits

The Lost Art of Conversation

Guiding Philosophy:  Free Speech

I. No Topic Nazis

No “topic compulsion” – i.e., nobody is under any obligation to “stay on topic” when they come up to mic.  The idea is that two “dangers” which “topic Nazis” are always afraid of (either (1) an “olkee” will start to dominate the room with his blatherings; or (2) the flow of the conversation between a few mic chatters will be disrupted) will be organically sorted out in the end by two factors:

1) time limits

2) other on-topic chatters who, by their collective presence & participation on mic, will outweigh any stragglers who try to divert or go against the flow.

And if #2 doesn’t materialize, that is the fault of the chatters in the room not participating enough.  Don’t make it cause for inhibiting free speech.

II. Garden paths are nice.

Also, I think meandering conversations that go off on tangents and stray off topic are often interesting.

II. No obligation to "debate".
 

Please to God, let’s not have a manic obsession with “Debates” as a part of the room philosophy.  Let’s try to cultivate an appreciation for Conversation and Discussion that is not necessarily dictated by “debates” and formal “arguments”.



III. Room Rules:

Time limit: 3 minutes (I recommend the admins can adjust the time limit during certain times where an extended conversation between many chatters on mic seems to warrant extending it, or reducing it).

Dottable offenses:

Excessive spamming/scrolling

Mic jumping

Death threats (I recommend that the death threat has to be explicitly in the form of “I am going to kill you” -- as opposed to “I dream of the day when I can kill you” or “I have a wish that I could kill you”)

That’s it: nothing else.  All other speech & expression is allowed.  Any admin who dots for more than this will have his hat taken away (either then, or if he does it a second time).

Bouncing/Banning offenses:

These are the same as the dottable offenses – but only if the chatter keeps doing it too many times (3 times is the charm?).

Nothing else should warrant a bounce or a ban.

Note:


We positively encourage chatters to insult the admins, to lecture them on how badly the room is being run, and to disparage their family members, and generally to mock & attack the room!

And again the rule applies:  if chatters would find such insults tedious or offensive, the best medicine is to get up on the mic in large numbers and offer something different and better!

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

A plea to the readers of Jihad Watch comments -- by “Fessitude”



(Note: if you don’t want to slog through all these paragraphs, please skip down to the “Conclusion” -- but also note the first sentence of the third paragraph.)
 


Reasonably assuming there are many readers of Jihad Watch comments (knowing that probably thousands, if not tens of thousands, if not perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people read Jihad Watch, and among those numbers surely some hefty portion must dip deeper in from the headlines, and from the stories, into the comments threads); and knowing that therefore the individuals swimming around here far exceed in numbers the “Peanut Gallery”, I hope and trust that some of these nameless, numberless readers might take notice of a dismayingly regular phenomenon here (at Jihad Watch comments) and help me out.

(Note:  my term “Peanut Gallery” denotes a select group of long-time Jihad Watch commenters (Angemon, gravenimage, Mirren, Champ, Wellington, Western Canadian, joe blow, PRCS, DFD, JayBoo, mortimer, and a few others) who have formed an irrational in-group which, like all in-groups, puts its in-group above other concerns (even the concern for which they formed!), and as part of that dubious priority cultivates an Us-vs.-Them paranoia & hostility about outsiders (defined as such by their in-groupthink + their in-group behaviors), such as myself.  One feature of their in-group behavior has been to ignore what Angemon has been doing -- or, on the odd chance they deign to notice (usually as a result of my losing patience with Angemon's pestering & bullying and blurting out some comment about him or them), they invariably move in to chide me, not him.  A natural (and naturally irrational) behavior from in-group members, defending their in-group.)

What I’d like help with is this pest named “Angemon”.  He is one of those long-time Jihad Watch commenters of the aforementioned “Peanut Gallery”.  His modus operandi is to zoom in to pester me practically whenever I post a comment here.  From March to the end of May of this year, for example, he has zoomed in to pester me over 100 times -- where every one of my comments he has zoomed into nitpick has not even mentioned him.  And he has been doing this for nearly two years.

Why is he doing this?  If he were just a pest or garden-variety troll, I wouldn’t care that much.  He is obviously obsessed with some flaws in my position & outlook on the problem of Islam.  Since my position & outlook reflects a harder stance against Islam, one reasonably assumes his obsessive objections are in defense of a softer stance -- which in my book translates into a softer stance in favor of Muslims.  

The third feature of Angemon’s nuisance -- aside from 1) the insane number of posts needling me (and their detailed voluminousness on average), tantamount to an obsession; and 2) their objection to the harder stance on Islam -- is its complex sophistry.  Long ago, when he was first getting into this, I made the mistake of getting entangled with his posts, spending time & trouble defending myself.  It didn’t take long for me to realize that his posts are insanely complex feats of sophistry that multiply his initial misunderstandings, mischaracterizations, red herrings, strawmen, and other logical fallacies into bewildering and annoying ravels of tangles -- and that getting involved with them in an argument soon devolves into getting lost in the rabbit hole of his obsession, because he just keeps on bouncing back with ever more tangles of sophistry, like an “Energizer Bunny”.

And the pièce de résistance that makes Angemon such an insufferable nuisance for me is that nobody in Jihad Watch comments seems to care about this going on.  When they are not obliviously swimming by like the Angemon/Fessitude entanglement (all Angemon’s doing) is some useless wreck on the ocean bottom, they once in a blue moon chime in to attack me, not him.

Conclusion:

So, long story short: I am appealing to any reader to please do me a favor, at least once (or twice, or more…?):  Firstly, please read through an Angemon objection to any of my comments -- and there are plenty to pick from; you won’t be able to swim through Jihad Watch comments for long without bumping into an instance where I post a comment that doesn’t mention Angemon at all, advocating my harder stance on Islam, and then sure enough, there’s Angemon pinning himself to my underside, like some mad parasite.

Secondly, kind reader, please do the following:

a) if you happen to agree with Angemon, please paraphrase his attempted argument -- sans the mean-spirited sophistry he seems incapable of laying aside

or

b) if you disagree with Angemon, please help a starving beggar out with a drop of water or scrap of bread or a couple of farthings and post a comment indicating why you disagree with Angemon (for which, toothless and in rags, on my knees in this wasteland of Jihad Watch comments, I would bless God and thank thee…!).

Further Reading:

http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2016/05/an-angemon-watch-or-fessitude-watch_18.html

Tuesday, March 01, 2016

Miguel de Unamuno

Quotes from Unamuno:
 
Faith which does not doubt is dead faith.

Life is doubt, and faith without doubt is nothing but death.
 
If a person never contradicts himself, it must be that he says nothing.
 
It is sad not to love, but it is much sadder not to be able to love.
 
Man dies of cold, not of darkness.
 
Those who believe that they believe in God, but without passion in their hearts, without anguish in mind, without uncertainty, without doubt, without an element of despair even in their consolation, believe only in the God idea, not God Himself.

֍ ֍ ֍ ֍ ֍