@nayf i reported you for calling me a sissie
Well be that as it may, I actually agree with @nayf. Too many people take offense to little things. If people worked harder at just not taking offense there would be less war. And we would have world peace. Honestly I am not really sure how the world became so whiny. It was almost like it exploded in 2016. Before then you noticed it slightly, but after.. It was like a train wreck.
@Marius1996 No please no! What if they make me stand in the corner for 10 minutes? ;-)
@MeWantCookieMobile
That's a very interesting point. It's a fallacy to blame alleged offenders for all the conflicts in the world, whereas the people screaming at every perceived offense arguably bear a large part of the burden. On western campuses now you can have your organisation disbanded for the offense of "cultural appropriation". This actually happened to a yoga class - of all things! - at my university. Basically you absolutely may not use humour of any kind in relation to any identifiable group any more. Or consider the Danish cartoon of Muhammed published some years ago. Muslims who were "offended" went on a rampage, killing over a hundred non-Muslims as "revenge".
As I observed here a month or two ago, there is a long-standing tradition of trash-talking blitz which all the greats have participated in. For participants it's fun, but if you don't find it so, no one is forcing you to join in; it's as simple as that.
#11 "I'd rather be a man than a sheep, but since you obviously think like a sheep I agree that my preference would be difficult to explain to you."
Look at this tough guy everyone! He's a walking, talking parody, you sheep can only dream of being so ridiculously arrogant.
@nayf
Your use of Moral Equivalency marks you as a very weak character.
Within the parameters of Lichess,reporting of trolls is completely legitimate.
As to your attitude towards reporting trolls..."Methinks the lady doth protest too much."
@ChessBlaster23000 The references to men and sheep had to do with thinking for oneself as opposed to following the crowd, a reply to #9, who had said "didn't you realized that you're the only in this chat who thinks in this way?" (Which he seems to think is a reason for me to change my view). So far as I can tell, that has little to do with being tough. I agree, however, that since nearly all objections to my view here are irrelevant ad hominems, if you are incapable of anything else then you may as well aim for consistency with the others and join the crowd yourself.
@bunyip "Moral equivalency"? Your variety of comprehension problems is amusing.
To begin with, the term was coined by Jeane Kirpatrick, Ronald Reagan's ambassador to the UN, to excuse American actions that included support for brutal dictatorships deemed by her merely "authoritarian", not totalitarian. To her, virtually any act committed in the name of fighting communism was justified, and immune to criticism on pain of committing the sin of "Moral Equivalency". That is mentioned simply to observe that from its origin the term was dubiously employed as a justfication of acts sometimes far worse than those to which they were ostensibly responding.
Now to the matter at hand. Asserting moral equivalency would be a vice if applied to an egregious act and reasonable measures taken to defend against that act. Obviously, in life there are also sometimes UNreasonable measures taken in response to MINOR offenses. The example of Muslim extremists murdering hundreds of innocent people in response to a cartoon (that happened to be itself complaining about violence in the name of Islam) is obviously such an example. Since you deign to comment on my character, I'm here to tell you that your failure to understand my example says a lot about YOUR character. Similarly but in a different way with the yoga example: it is plain stupid to take offence at non-Hindus practicing yoga to the point of banning a class on a campus. For you to think my objections in these examples commit the sin of moral eqivalency, again, says a lot about you.
Finally, about offensive comments on Lichess: for the umpteenth time, I claim that they are MINOR offenses and that reasonable reponses are to ignore them or handle them oneself. You don't advance the discussion by again begging the question, that is, merely ASSUMING that they are terrible offenses requiring the heavy hand of an authority resulting in a ban. That is what you do when you think a sin of "moral equivalency" is being committed. On the contrary, the sin of sissy crybabiness is being committed by demanding an authority's intervention for the slight offense of an anonymous private insult that no one else can even read.
This is why i dont chat._. Everybody gets too emotionally invested trying soo hard to be top alpha because reality is we are all weak and are dependent on each other for strength ._ but i wonder if there was one word to call someone that trumps everything._ in any case good luck on the forum fight
The phrase "moral equivalence" originates with William James and his 1906 speech "The Moral Equivalent of War".
I see nothing to be gained by discussing anything at all with a pseudo-intellectual who bases their entire premise on a falsehood. @nayf
When did you receive the position of sole arbiter of what is major or minor bad behaviour?You seem to have the compulsion to pontificate pompously on everything anyone else says.I'm guessing you only ever get invited to dinner the first time.
More stupid ad hominems. No matter if James originated it; Kirpatrick gave it modern currency in the 1980s. It is entirely irrelevant to my arguments, but I agree that a very obtuse person would think those arguments depended on who coined the term.
@nayf
Not an ad hominem,pal...you lied,and I CORRECTED IT.
You now are saying it does not matter if you tell blatant lies.Sounds very Trumpian.
You lose,and I don't.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.