New rules

[DeppityDawg]

There are those I don't rate at all and I genuinely couldn't care less what they think about me

I think you do, Lefty, and I think that's where you are going wrong. In the end, this is an internet forum, and if I really took it all to heart (murderer, killer, fascist, racist, etc), I'd have stopped posting a long time ago. Does it really matter that much what people say about you on an internet forum? You've already identified that some people here are less than sincere (in your assessment) - genuine posters know who is worth listening to and who isn't. Who has something to say and who is trolling.

You are an intelligent poster, and tbh, I don't disagree with many of your principles. In reality, most people aren't all that different in real life - most people recoil from genuine suffering and hardships, and are sympathetic to real life injustices and discrimination - where we mostly disagree I suspect is in the definitions. I don't buy identity politics and far left narratives about the "oppressed" and the "oppressors". There is no such thing as "good people" and "bad people" - no such thing as a perfect world. You know why? Because when our little worlds are turned upside down, we all revert to tribal ethics. To looking out for ourselves and those closest to us. I know lefty, because I've been there

You don't have to respect or even read what other people on here write - many posters clearly don't even do the latter, because the amount of replies that miss the posters point is evidence of that. But there isn't much point in posting anything if all you want to do is validate your POV. In the modern world of the internet and social media, there as many POVs as stars in the universe. I once said when I first started posting on the original forum, that I wanted to find out why people thought the way they do. Because I was interested. Because I thought it would solve some of my own insecurities and misunderstandings

I was wrong as it turned out. I know no more now about why people think the way they do than I did then. Because all people are different, and we are all complex. Some are great, some are shits, some are liars, and some are just doing the best they can. The only thing I did find out I guess, was the reasons why I think the way I do. And if thats all you find out, it won't have been for nothing. Just be yourself ffs.

[srb7677]

Moderation

I know I received a private warning for insulting other members and it is possible that he received some form of warning for something or other too. I don't know.

Then there's rule 3.4, which you are getting very close to the line. So please back off.

I have not questioned or disputed any mod judgement or warning.

[Sheepy]

You look for approval too much, lefty. You don't need anyones approval.

If nothing else you have jogged my memory as to which username I last posted under here - Leftylib.

But more seriously, whether or not I value anyone's approval depends in large measure upon how much I rate them as a human being and as a debater. There are those I don't rate at all and I genuinely couldn't care less what they think about me. But with those with an ounce of integrity I like to think there can be some measure of mutual respect, even in the absence of agreement. When someone whose integrity I once respected goes into all out provocative, borderline troll, attack mode against me with false allegations about my personal life and all the rest I have cited, it kind of matters more than if it was someone I had no respect for in the first place. It is hard not to see it as a deliberately calculated attempt to destabilise me and I react badly to it. I see it as a malicious personal attack by someone intelligent enough to know full well what he is doing. Maybe some was meant in jest and the humour was over my head, I don't know.

But in any case I am prepared to start afresh with the person I most have in mind with those comments.

Good for you. As DD said (l think), this is only cyber space. A few high words don't matter. And while I must be the only poster here who does not know the name of the brilliant debater everyone else is referring to, you need not match him word for word. As often as not, the legend, eat shit c*nt, will suffice

On the brightside you old goat, more people have supplemented their diet with fresh vegtables by growing their own than since WW2. Quite an achievment .

[papasmurf]

I must be the only poster here who does not know the name of the brilliant debater everyone else is referring to,

I have no idea either who it could be either. There are loads of mass debaters though.

[Forum admin]

Moderation

I know I received a private warning for insulting other members and it is possible that he received some form of warning for something or other too. I don't know.

Then there's rule 3.4, which you are getting very close to the line. So please back off.

[Borchester]

You look for approval too much, lefty. You don't need anyones approval.

If nothing else you have jogged my memory as to which username I last posted under here - Leftylib.

But more seriously, whether or not I value anyone's approval depends in large measure upon how much I rate them as a human being and as a debater. There are those I don't rate at all and I genuinely couldn't care less what they think about me. But with those with an ounce of integrity I like to think there can be some measure of mutual respect, even in the absence of agreement. When someone whose integrity I once respected goes into all out provocative, borderline troll, attack mode against me with false allegations about my personal life and all the rest I have cited, it kind of matters more than if it was someone I had no respect for in the first place. It is hard not to see it as a deliberately calculated attempt to destabilise me and I react badly to it. I see it as a malicious personal attack by someone intelligent enough to know full well what he is doing. Maybe some was meant in jest and the humour was over my head, I don't know.

But in any case I am prepared to start afresh with the person I most have in mind with those comments.

Good for you. As DD said (l think), this is only cyber space. A few high words don't matter. And while I must be the only poster here who does not know the name of the brilliant debater everyone else is referring to, you need not match him word for word. As often as not, the legend, eat shit C@@@, will suffice 

[srb7677]

You look for approval too much, lefty. You don't need anyones approval.

If nothing else you have jogged my memory as to which username I last posted under here - Leftylib.

But more seriously, whether or not I value anyone's approval depends in large measure upon how much I rate them as a human being and as a debater. There are those I don't rate at all and I genuinely couldn't care less what they think about me. But with those with an ounce of integrity I like to think there can be some measure of mutual respect, even in the absence of agreement. When someone whose integrity I once respected goes into all out provocative, borderline troll, attack mode against me with false allegations about my personal life and all the rest I have cited, it kind of matters more than if it was someone I had no respect for in the first place. It is hard not to see it as a deliberately calculated attempt to destabilise me and I react badly to it. I see it as a malicious personal attack by someone intelligent enough to know full well what he is doing. Maybe some was meant in jest and the humour was over my head, I don't know.

But in any case I am prepared to start afresh with the person I most have in mind with those comments.

[Sheepy]

And that, he has a wicked sense of humour. An acquired taste maybe.

[DeppityDawg]

I accept that. But in my case he began repeatedly distorting things I said into things I didn't actually say in spite of my repeated clarifications, frequently insulted me by for example calling me a coward, and frequently insisted upon making untrue and wholly irrelevant false accusations about my private life with no evidence whatsoever and in spite of my constant corrections, all as obvious personal digs. At one point he issued what was obviously a rhetorical and fake apology because it was immediately followed by a repetition of the false accusation he was supposed to be apologising for!!! That is not honest debate but deliberate provocation and is pretty close to trolling.

Which is a pity because when he is prepared to engage in honest, non-provocative debate we have proven capable of doing so constructively. He is more than capable of it. He is an excellent debater when he does so honestly. But for whatever motivation, in my case he chose to go into attack mode and try and provoke a negative reaction. I suspect he wanted me to flounce off, . He would seemingly prefer not to have me around.

Nevertheless, it is all water under the bridge and I am prepared to move on and start afresh if he is.

When all is said and done, there are some posters on here with a wicked sense of humour, and others less so. That poster is absolutely the best laugh on the entire forum, and there are times when I piss myself laughing at what he posts - you either get it or you don't.

You look for approval too much, lefty. You don't need anyones approval. Sometimes you have to plough your own furrow - you won't please everyone all the time, even among those who are nominally on your side of the fence. Mix it up a bit, LeftyLib, and fight back. Sooner or later, there will be a dangerous moment when you will agree with me on something, then you'll be a nazi too 

[srb7677]

he is a sharp debater with a very good knowledge.

I accept that. But in my case he began repeatedly distorting things I said into things I didn't actually say in spite of my repeated clarifications, frequently insulted me by for example calling me a coward, and frequently insisted upon making untrue and wholly irrelevant false accusations about my private life with no evidence whatsoever and in spite of my constant corrections, all as obvious personal digs. At one point he issued what was obviously a rhetorical and fake apology because it was immediately followed by a repetition of the false accusation he was supposed to be apologising for!!! That is not honest debate but deliberate provocation and is pretty close to trolling.

Which is a pity because when he is prepared to engage in honest, non-provocative debate we have proven capable of doing so constructively. He is more than capable of it. He is an excellent debater when he does so honestly. But for whatever motivation, in my case he chose to go into attack mode and try and provoke a negative reaction. I suspect he wanted me to flounce off, . He would seemingly prefer not to have me around.

Nevertheless, it is all water under the bridge and I am prepared to move on and start afresh if he is.

[Sheepy]

I think the ability not to take things too personally in these debates helps immensely - sometimes people are reacting to the view rather than the person themselves. I don't always manage it, but I try. I think maybe you let it get to you more than it should.

True. I can be too easily wound up and there are those who play on that with the attempt to provoke an angry meltdown rather than engage in honest debate. Constant dishonest statements about me or about things I have supposedly said but haven't, which are persisted with in spite of my corrections are obviously designed for provocation rather than honest interaction. And this does tend to anger me and bring out the worst in me. Those prepared to engage honestly with me even though we may disagree usually get a constructive response and earn my respect.

I think you should mend bridges with that poster - if he is the one I think you are referring to, you won't find many other posters who are as passionate and who have stuck to their guns so resolutely over the years - I don't agree with everything he says either, but I recognise and respect sincerity when I see it. Sometimes, you are far better off with tough adversaries than with fickle friends, lefty.

If we are talking about the same person and I suspect we are, he has kept a very low profile of late and has left me alone entirely. I know I received a private warning for insulting other members and it is possible that he received some form of warning for something or other too. I don't know. I know he has strong beliefs and I respect them - more so than he respects mine it seems to me. But constantly insulting me by calling me a coward and suchlike and attacking me for saying things I haven't actually said, also repeatedly repeating falsehoods in spite of my corrections, is not honest debating conduct, merely deliberate provocation.

But I will approach him in debate going forwards in an honest and respectful way in spite of possibly disagreeing, and if that can be reciprocated than we'll have no problems.

We all know who you are talking about and have a bee in your bonnet, he isn't a troll but he is a sharp debater with a very good knowledge. It is easy to find the biggest troll on here, he trolls everyone and every thread.

[srb7677]

I think the ability not to take things too personally in these debates helps immensely - sometimes people are reacting to the view rather than the person themselves. I don't always manage it, but I try. I think maybe you let it get to you more than it should.

True. I can be too easily wound up and there are those who play on that with the attempt to provoke an angry meltdown rather than engage in honest debate. Constant dishonest statements about me or about things I have supposedly said but haven't, which are persisted with in spite of my corrections are obviously designed for provocation rather than honest interaction. And this does tend to anger me and bring out the worst in me. Those prepared to engage honestly with me even though we may disagree usually get a constructive response and earn my respect.

I think you should mend bridges with that poster - if he is the one I think you are referring to, you won't find many other posters who are as passionate and who have stuck to their guns so resolutely over the years - I don't agree with everything he says either, but I recognise and respect sincerity when I see it. Sometimes, you are far better off with tough adversaries than with fickle friends, lefty.

If we are talking about the same person and I suspect we are, he has kept a very low profile of late and has left me alone entirely. I know I received a private warning for insulting other members and it is possible that he received some form of warning for something or other too. I don't know. I know he has strong beliefs and I respect them - more so than he respects mine it seems to me. But constantly insulting me by calling me a coward and suchlike and attacking me for saying things I haven't actually said, also repeatedly repeating falsehoods about my private life in spite of my corrections, is not honest debating conduct, merely deliberate provocation.

But I will approach him in debate going forwards in an honest and respectful way in spite of possibly disagreeing, and if that can be reciprocated than we'll have no problems.

[DeppityDawg]

This often requires honest nuance which both sides can often lack. For example for some people racism can be a motivating factor in their opposition to mass migration. Opponents of mass migration are wrong to deny this as are their critics for lazily assuming all critics of mass migration are racists. How many are motivated in part by racism and how many by honest and genuine non-racist concerns such as yourself is a debate in and of itself. And it is further complicated by the fact that some who have racist motivations may also have recognisably genuine concerns too. In short, one side is wrong to deny that racism can be a motive for some, the other side is wrong to call them all racists.

Similarly, those wishing to leave the EU. Calling them fascists would be idiotic in the vast majority of cases, but there are a few who are motivated by looking back to the past and the glories of empire, or Britain standing alone in WW2. I have met such types on the doorstep. It would be wrong to deny their existence, but opponents of Brexit are at least as wrong in trying to portray all Brexiteers in this light.

It is easy when in attack mode to slip into over-generalisation - I have done it in the past. I know I have referred to Brexiteers as "gammons" in the past as a form of blanket derogatory insult but I tend not to do it anymore. It is unfair to label over half the adult population in this way just because a few might conform to a certain stereotype. In that sense I myself have been guilty of the thing you are criticising, and I will admit here to having been in the wrong and apologise for it.

I think the ability not to take things too personally in these debates helps immensely - sometimes people are reacting to the view rather than the person themselves. I don't always manage it, but I try. I think maybe you let it get to you more than it should. Its not always easy, I know, as on this forum (and its predecessors) there are still a lot of posters who've been contributing for many years, so its fair to say many of them are more genuine (whether you like them or not) than the average poster on an internet forum. You at least know their views over a long period, and this can be both a good thing, and maybe upsetting for some when things get heated

I'll admit I'm often blunt and direct, but that's just me. My background hasn't lent itself to polite little niceties I'm afraid - that doesn't make me any less sincere. I think you should mend bridges with that poster - if he is the one I think you are referring to, you won't find many other posters who are as passionate and who have stuck to their guns so resolutely over the years - I don't agree with everything he says either, but I recognise and respect sincerity when I see it. Sometimes, you are far better off with tough adversaries than with fickle friends, lefty.

As for apologising, everyone on here has probably had something to apologise for at one time or another. Stand your ground, fight your fight, and give respect where its due. You will get it back.

[srb7677]

any argument against mass migration automatically framed as being motivated by racism, or those wanting to leave the EU being fascists or "dreamers" hankering after the days of Empire.

This often requires honest nuance which both sides can often lack. For example for some people racism can be a motivating factor in their opposition to mass migration. Opponents of mass migration are wrong to deny this as are their critics for lazily assuming all critics of mass migration are racists. How many are motivated in part by racism and how many by honest and genuine non-racist concerns such as yourself is a debate in and of itself. And it is further complicated by the fact that some who have racist motivations may also have recognisably genuine concerns too. In short, one side is wrong to deny that racism can be a motive for some, the other side is wrong to call them all racists.

Similarly, those wishing to leave the EU. Calling them fascists would be idiotic in the vast majority of cases, but there are a few who are motivated by looking back to the past and the glories of empire, or Britain standing alone in WW2. I have met such types on the doorstep. It would be wrong to deny their existence, but opponents of Brexit are at least as wrong in trying to portray all Brexiteers in this light.

It is easy when in attack mode to slip into over-generalisation - I have done it in the past. I know I have referred to Brexiteers as "gammons" in the past as a form of blanket derogatory insult but I tend not to do it anymore. It is unfair to label over half the adult population in this way just because a few might conform to a certain stereotype. In that sense I myself have been guilty of the thing you are criticising, and I will admit here to having been in the wrong and apologise for it.

[DeppityDawg]

For sure. If I did that I'd be asking for a smack in the mouth. Though when it comes to debate - whether in a pub or otherwise - stooping to insults is often a sign of someone becoming heated and wound up. This can be because he is himself losing the argument, or it could be in response to provocations.

That I would generally agree with. But the common mistake we all make to a certain extent is failing to afford others the due respect to their beliefs that we expect for our own - I'm not claiming to be innocent, and you certainly aren't either. The thing is Lefty, liberals aren't the only ones who can be passionate about their beliefs - I can too, and I often am. It doesn't make me "right" all the time, but what does make me intensely angry is the entitled, assumed moral and intellectual superiority displayed by many liberals - this is often evidenced by insulting assumptions and accusations - for example any argument against mass migration automatically framed as being motivated by racism, or those wanting to leave the EU being fascists or "dreamers" hankering after the days of Empire. These are no less insulting to people, particularly when they are made in the complete absence (and often instead) of a coherent counter argument

I agree. But though you and I often disagree I hope we can both acknowledge each other to be generally honest debaters when it comes to saying what we genuinely think. I like to think I don't play immature games for the most part and if I ever behave badly it is usually due to deliberate wind ups and provocations, which some specialise in as a form of politically loaded trolling. I have one particular poster in mind as I say that

I wouldn't have bothered telling you about trying to save you sorry arse from the mod-mob if I didn't have some respect for you. No its true, we don't often agree about much, but I believe you are basically an honest debater, who maybe gets a little over emotional at times, but hey no one is perfect. We all have posters who immediately set us on a collision course, but what you may find gaming, I may not, and vice versa.