Another one for the Pakistani passport file?
Perhaps you shouldn't have acted as a rape advocate, then.
It's always a laugh when you go on a lark redefining terms. I mean, anything can mean anything in Tiassa's lexicon. As a part-time employment, are you considering law, or is there any economic imperative left to the industry of sheer rhetoric? I suppose there must be.
And perhaps you shouldn't have included homophobia in your justification of a man's biological urge to rape.
I'm sure I would be
amazed to learn how you redefine
that into existence. By contrast, do you consider gay sex to be just some kind of power leveraging process? I bet there's some kind of science fiction analogy for it, but how you spring from some kind of partial imperative to full-blown rapid biology beats me: when you do this, do you think that your blatant misrepresentations are necessary out of loyalty to cause or to the general dialectic? Do you feel that any old kind of lie - so long as it serves the mainstem of social interest, as defined in your head, by you - is okay? Is this what your step-daddy burning your AC-DC records
really has come to: physical bullying has to be repaid with an attempt at intellectual bullying? I'm not all those dirty, dirty people that don't like you, or that you
suspect don't like you, and who need to be corrected, somehow, by whatever means is at hand. That sort of thing one might consider
unethical; I expect you have a dictionary to hand, but I have learned that that is as much as one can really expect.
And perhaps you shouldn't have made such an effort to raise straw men by distorting people's words.
I'm nearly speechless.
That from the likes of
you?
And perhaps you should cram your ego in the back seat once in a while and actually try to be useful to a discussion.
Wow. Same response, I guess.
By
being useful to a discussion I guess you mean that one should be on the same page of the subject that you are, and nowhere else.
Be useful seems to mean
in fullest agreement, or perhaps alternatively to portray the bogeyman or sacrificial antagonist to the story. To disagree with Tiassa is to achieve subhumanity
en passant: "rape advocate", "homophobe", even "anti-American" once. It's all there. One wonders: why exactly is there a
discussion forum at all, since deviation from Tiassa's views is grounds for social crimethink? It would be a lot more effective, really, if you just locked each thread as you created it. Bells and others could write you for permission to post in it, and you could unlock it for a second to place their views - pending approval, of course; naturally there's a deal of latitude in the thoughtcrime you need to infer in the posters, so that each opinion should be checked on a case-by-case basis just in case something might be derivably amiss, and then
into the memory hole it go. Maybe you could link to your blog as you go, making your contributory process really integral and much more simple. Once in a while you could allow a post from the unspeakables, just as an exemplar of the direction that SF is
not to go in. The proles will get it, after a while.
I'm not a councillor, but alternatively maybe we could just use the space here to try and solve your issues, since that's essentially the other thing that this subforum seems to be about now: Tiassa raises
reductio ad absurdum and wails until someone responds in the way that he wants. If no one answers quickly enough, he posts a link - context-reduced, of course; our Tiassa is nothing if he is not conscious of brevity in certain situations - to an earlier argument in an attempt to drum up such a response. If the response earned either initially or subsequently does not fit into the puzzle of his preconceptions, he wails louder and hammers the piece until it does at least
seem to fit. And then the rest of the thread is spent with one 'side' trying to hammer it in further, or perhaps just smarting that it's crammed illegitimately into the
wrong space, while the other 'side' attempts to point out that the grass contrasts a little too obviously with sky-blue. Now, don't get me wrong: it's not
unsophisticated trolling,
per se, it's just that it's unnecessary by definition, which is the problem.
But ultimately, this same problem is going to recur, isn't it? It's going to come back whether we all want it or not, because, well,
Tiassa's ego, right? It's delicate. It has to be maintained, fed, watered. But ultimately I'm not sure from your body of work whether you
really do do this (IMHO) out of the ignorance of a lingering narcissism, or whether such a narcissism could actually explain a deep, abiding kind of intellectual disjunction that you seem to work with regularly. If the one informs the other, does that mean they're independent, or would one call it part of the same general illusion? For example, I've made a host of very thoughtful responses to your ego - even reconciliatory overtures! - not that you'll 'be able to find those' when you cherry-pick a few subjects out of context in your succeeding post, but they're there, all the same. So will you deflect them, or just ignore them? Who can say! You know at least two ways to dodge an element and if those recur, it's because they
work, damnit.
Ah well. No worries. Nothing is too good for the narrative, Tiassa, and gratitude is a disease of dogs. I enjoin you not to be offended - actually or 'functionally' - by the above. As an oxymoron, your behaviour coupled with your responsibilities on SF speak to SF
far more eloquently and succinctly than I could ever do.