What is it with trolls?

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:44 pm

beastie wrote:The first thing that jumps out at me that Nehor thinks it's "inane" to respect the sensibilities of those who dislike the mentally handicapped being used as part of a joke.

But aside from that, using his logic, we shouldn't have to refrain from using overt temple content in this forum. That's a "sensibility" that seems inane, given how readily available temple content is in the first place. But it's a sensibility we, as a community, have generally agreed to abide.

A small correction to your point. I was speaking generally but I meant that that sensibilities themselves are inane, not whether or not anyone respects them.

That is an agreement on this board. If a board rule was added that mocking those with sub-normal mental capacity is not allowed, I will abide by that decision. However, there seems to be a split on the board in this regard. Mercury has used the word tard to describe people lately so I think it's safe to say he has no objection (and I can't help but note no one called him on it). BCSpace seems to be okay with it. Sethbag seemed to think it wasn't tasteless. I think it's funny. I counted four people who thought it was without taste and I'm assuming most of the rest just don't care or got a mild chuckle and left it.

These forums are often filled with tasteless, offensive images. I think of Infy's Hinckley and Packer photoshops and the stuff Merc and Porter bring in every so often. Some of those I find funny, some I find stupid. I don't see anyone going on a moralistic rant at those and how the people in the image can't defend themselves. I don't understand the difference. I really don't. I think both should hang around. Originally I tried to state my thoughts on this in a fairly serious manner but was called vicious, evil, etc. Since I was still judged evil, I decided to go with the more lighthearted approach to it and try to have fun with it. Is that so wrong? I think no.

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:51 pm

Nehor wrote:I don't understand the difference. I really don't.

Then I'll spell it out for you. The difference is when you're using children in the picture. Pure and simple. That's it.

When you're a parent, hopefully, you'll be grown up enough to understand.

(Now I REALLY am going on hiatus)

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:00 pm

If a board rule was added that mocking those with sub-normal mental capacity is not allowed, I will abide by that decision.

It sometimes dismays me that I participate on an internet board where this even needs to be debated.

Post by **_Mercury** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:14 pm

beastie wrote:
If a board rule was added that mocking those with sub-normal mental capacity is not allowed, I will abide by that decision.

It sometimes dismays me that I participate on an internet board where this even needs to be debated.

I relish the fact that it IS being debated.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:16 pm

Mercury wrote:I relish the fact that it IS being debated.

Mercury, it creeps me out when I agree with you. It doesn't happen often but it just happened again.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:19 pm

Yes, Nehor, you and Merc always agree on this.

At least you're now actually admitting that you ARE mocking the mentally handicapped, instead of playing that stupid shell game you played earlier about the now-banned word.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:22 pm

beastie wrote:Yes, Nehor, you and Merc always agree on this.

At least you're now actually admitting that you ARE mocking the mentally handicapped, instead of playing that stupid shell game you played earlier about the now-banned word.

I don't remember admitting that.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:25 pm

You admitted it when this was your reply, when I compared respecting our sensibilities to mocking the disabled to overt temple talk:

If a board rule was added that mocking those with sub-normal mental capacity is not allowed, I will abide by that decision.

Post by **_The Nehor** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:27 pm

beastie wrote:You admitted it when this was your reply, when I compared respecting our sensibilities to mocking the disabled to overt temple talk:

If a board rule was added that mocking those with sub-normal mental capacity is not allowed, I will abide by that decision.

I would abide by the rules. Saying I will avoid wearing nose rings if the Prophet asks me to does not mean that I now wear a nose ring.

Post by **_beastie** » Tue Jun 10, 2008 4:31 pm

Do you even pay attention to your own words? The context of your statement is clear. You're now rewriting very recent history, and it looks pathetic.

That is an agreement on this board. If a board rule was added that mocking those with sub-normal mental capacity is not allowed, I will abide by that decision. However, there seems to be a split on the board in this regard. Mercury has used the word tard to describe people lately so I think it's safe to say he has no objection (and I can't help but note no one called him on it). BCSpace seems to be okay with it. Sethbag seemed to think it wasn't tasteless. I think it's funny. I counted four people who thought it was without taste and I'm assuming most of the rest just don't care or got a mild chuckle and left it.

You were talking about "mocking those with sub-normal mental capacity" and then said there's a "split on the board IN THIS REGARD". You mentioned merc's use of the word "tard" and bC and Seth being ok with it, and you thinking it's funny. Just who do you think you're fooling by now pretending you were referring to something else????

The problem is that you accidentally admitted the truth - that you know doing what you and others do is mocking the disabled and are now trying to tap dance out of it. It won't work. Your words were clear, sadly for you.