Debate:The Dialogue of the Deaf

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by signed users.

Maindebate[edit]

Topic: The vandal binning of Marcus Cicero is inconsistent with Rationalwiki's goal of championing rationality on the internet.

Terms: One at a time. No foul language. Sarcasm and insults are certainly allowed if you think they'll be useful, but at least try to be parliamentary about it. If you do not also argue with Mei about something - nicely - then I won't participate and you can rot on the vine. No edit summaries are allowed; they must all be blank. You cannot promote this page or link to it in any way, because I don't want the whole wiki filling up with nonsense about it. You will go first. — Unsigned, by: TomMoore / talk / contribs

Debate:

Dearest rationalwikians,

It is my honour and privilege to appear here today to inaugurate the first of what will hopefully be a series of dialogues between the learned MarcusCicero and his distinguished opponents. The aims of these debates are immodest – they go right to the very heart of the epistemological quandary which RW has found itself sinking in over the last number of years.

The exact causes of that infamous event (Namely, the vandal binning of MarcusCicero) are lost to history. We have the bare recorded evidence of what occurred, the block war, the subsequent vandal spree, but we will never have the opportunity of logically investigating the causes of those events due to the authoritarian reaction from RWs most totalitarian members. Indeed, history now remembers the event as a ‘vandal spree’, mainly because of Mr. TomMoore's misleading template. This is a shame. By presenting an edit history of six deleted pages in a persecutory template Mr. Moore has surpassed himself in making RW into a parody of anti rationalism. He worships at the feet of historical facts, but runs away, frightened, from historical causes. His mind is incapable of comprehending difficult concepts such as ‘meaningless actions’, ‘irony’, or ‘wit’. His frequent usage of the persecutory template proves this.

As a result we are forced to conclude that no trial to determine MarcusCicero’s innocence will ever be possible. The essential time period has passed and the mob has proven that it is hysterical in ensuring this gross human rights abuse is maintained. No amount of reason can persuade a bloodhungry hound to cease eating wild fowl; indeed, the only way of putting an end to this practise is through the use of violence. This being the internet, and violence being undesirable and quite impossible, I am forced to make use of the power of words. Unfortunately, persuading these caricatures of Jacobin intolerance into a course of reason remains aloof even from my extraordinary abilities with the English language.

And so, we must move on. We must forget the vile outrages committed to my person and learn to forgive in full Christian humility. But one slight I cannot forgive; one slight which is beyond all others. I speak here of RW’s usurpation of reason. RW has taken a noble concept and twisted it into something corrupt and base, beyond our repair. This process must stop. I chose this title to mimic the great historiographical debates of the 1960s, when philosophers and historians came to a collision over profound postmodernist epistemological problems. It is a dialogue of the deaf – it is not always clear which side is in the right and which is in the wrong. It is a dialogue of the deaf because both sides say reasonable things but both sides refuse to listen to each other. Perhaps RW can learn from my laudable towering intellect. MarcusCicero (talk) MC

You are just terrible at this. I guess I expected more... some sort of jeremiad that declaimed us all as persecutors with coherent points. No one pretends to think you're sincere - not even you or I - but I had expected at least a decent attempt. You not only deleted several pages in haste before being forcibly stopped, but outright stated you were trolling and how. So I thought this would be a good show. But you're still hiding behind this goofy olde-timey presentation and making the argument that the causes of your binning are "lost to history"?
MC, I can't even reasonably pretend to take that seriously.
Everyone knows that Rationalwiki is pretty swell. It's a community of people of all ages and both genders, spread out around the English-speaking world (and even elsewhere) and bubbling with dissent. It's a place small enough to be heard but large enough to echo, and filled with an awesome bunch of people. Human and his balls-to-the-wall dedication, Toast with enough wryness to merit the name, Ace's rip-roaring forthrightness, Kels' brightness, Listener's relentless nuttery, ToP's acerbic insight, Mei's innate otaku-drawn bubbliness, and many others. And while we disagree on many specific points and some of our stronger personalities can spark against each other during the grating of conflict, we all ultimately agree that a man's mind should guide him.
You want to be a part of our community.
We're sorry. You can't be.
It's clear you're at least moderately intelligent and fairly manipulative. So every chance has been given you, even when we knew we were being trolled. And because we're at the mercy of our ideals for the most part (not a bad thing), you are not banned even after you have declared yourself explicitly to be a troll dedicated to hurting us. We are so dedicated to rationality that even those of us who thought you should be banned were unwilling to impose their will on you to that effect unless others agreed.
In many ways, you unwillingly point out what is best in Rationalwiki, even while you scrabble to find some chink to cram your prying yellowed claws in. There might be moaning about "feeding the troll" and the ever-present shrieks of "Headless Chicken Mode!", but overall people just mock you, get exasperated, and move on to giggling together over Andy Schlafly's latest idiocy.
I'm not going to ask you to admit you're wrong and try to be a part of our community. I don't think you could, even if you wanted to.
Nor am I making a naive appeal for you to just leave us alone. You have tried to "leave and not come back" before, and couldn't. It's too big of a lure: a community of people who will always enduringly hear you out and who refuse to sink to your level.
So I guess I just want to let you know that this could have been a grand moment for you. I'm not sure what you said, but you could have come up with something funny or insightful or worthwhile. Even after all your abuse, people would have listened. But you kind of spoiled it, didn't you?
I know you think you're trolling. You think you're pulling strings and taking advantage, and you certainly like being the center of attention.
Let's talk about a party. Everyone's having a good time. But there's one guy who's sweaty and smells a little, who's drunk too much and gets too close. He's someone's friend or brother, and people at the party endure him for the sake of that. So when he pounds back another warm Natural Light beer and leans leeringly in to smile at your little sister, stumbling slightly, you just redirect him gently and smile when your sister rolls her eyes. Someone may take him aside to try to get him to get a hold of himself or go sleep it off, and maybe someone will get angry with him. But mostly people just feel kind of sorry for him. He's not winning or pulling anyone's strings, since he can't help the way he is. Just like you.
You're the sweaty unwelcome guy at this party, MC.
And I am disappointed.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the above sentiments. Regarding the vandal binning, & MC's ridiculous claims that he was binned for his dissenting views rather than actions, I just want to note that the deletion incident has been followed by various other acts of unpleasantness, including comments maliciously signed in other editors' names ([1],[2],[3]). ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I must say that I'm disappointed, but not surprised by TomMoore's opening statement. He fundamentally proves why the title is what it is (A Dialogue of the Deaf)
Of course I'm insincere - a la 'my towering intellect', 'I, the base manifestation of reason' etc. Duh. But TomMoore's response is so lacking in wit or insight into irony that it requires a phase by phase deconstruction.
You not only deleted several pages in haste before being forcibly stopped, but outright stated you were trolling and how. So I thought this would be a good show. But you're still hiding behind this goofy olde-timey presentation and making the argument that the causes of your binning are lost to history?
I have explained several times the reasons for those page deletions. The irony was intended to show that even though I 'outed' myself as a troll, I never abused my sysop rights. This was in the face of little shits like 'TheAutocrat' whining and crying when I got them, loudly proclaiming that 'we shouldn't give him the chance to vandalise this wiki' when I was originally given sysop powers. After a rather long and boring block war, in which I didn't initiate, I decided to go on a vandalising spree - one last hurrah of my sysop powers which would immediatelly be taken away. The irony was that I never abused my powers up to that, much to the disappointment of shits like theautocrat. (Hence once I had actually outed myself, and admitted I was a troll, I started behaving as a troll/vandal to see how self righteous you all would get. I wasn't disappointed about that. However the fact that no-one could see the enormous irony say's a lot about your basic levels of intelligence. The fact that you still proclaim this nonsense says an awful lot about your lack of a sense of humour Tom.)
Everyone knows that Rationalwiki is pretty swell. It's a community of people of all ages and both genders, spread out around the English-speaking world (and even elsewhere) and bubbling with dissent. It's a place small enough to be heard but large enough to echo, and filled with an awesome bunch of people. Human and his balls-to-the-wall dedication, Toast with enough wryness to merit the name, Ace's rip-roaring forthrightness, Kels' brightness, Listener's relentless nuttery, ToP's acerbic insight, Mei's innate otaku-drawn bubbliness, and many others. And while we disagree on many specific points and some of our stronger personalities can spark against each other during the grating of conflict, we all ultimately agree that a man's mind should guide him. You want to be a part of our community. We're sorry. You can't be.
I enjoyed this paragraph. It displayed in an extremely black and white manner just how clueless you are. Whatever about your group fellatio - think what you like of your fellow forumers - but do get a grip. I do not want to be a part of this community. My work in real life is extremely mentally exhausting and I like to pick out contradictions on the internet. My gaze finally settled on RW after quite a lot of searching. I may get bored yet, but the idea that I 'want to be part of your community' is so bizarre, so quintessentially adolescently pathetic that I can't help but laugh.
Nor am I making a naive appeal for you to just leave us alone. You have tried to "leave and not come back" before, and couldn't. It's too big of a lure: a community of people who will always enduringly hear you out and who refuse to sink to your level. So I guess I just want to let you know that this could have been a grand moment for you. I'm not sure what you said, but you could have come up with something funny or insightful or worthwhile. Even after all your abuse, people would have listened. But you kind of spoiled it, didn't you?
You really don't understand, do you? What part of my 'leaving and never coming back' did you actually buy? You didn't get the irony once again, huh? You see, the natural conclusion for one of the internets pathetic socially retarded cretins when faced with a hostile community is to make a dramatic parthian shot somewhere on the site, making all sorts of 'suicide notes' (As in, saying things in the comfert in the belief that you'll never have to stick around to argue them out). I was mocking this ludicrous sense of internet self importance (RA, RA, RA, RA, RA etc.)
Let's talk about a party. Everyone's having a good time. But there's one guy who's sweaty and smells a little, who's drunk too much and gets too close. He's someone's friend or brother, and people at the party endure him for the sake of that. So when he pounds back another warm Natural Light beer and leans leeringly in to smile at your little sister, stumbling slightly, you just redirect him gently and smile when your sister rolls her eyes. Someone may take him aside to try to get him to get a hold of himself or go sleep it off, and maybe someone will get angry with him. But mostly people just feel kind of sorry for him. He's not winning or pulling anyone's strings, since he can't help the way he is. Just like you.
You're the sweaty unwelcome guy at this party, MC.
Eh.. right. That analogy would only work if any of you actually had any experience of social situations, rather than pretending at being cool kids on the internet. I mock you for my amusement in a completely anonymous setting. Think of me of a latter day 'Lord Haw Haw', without the Nazi's.
I agree with the above sentiments. Regarding the vandal binning, & MC's ridiculous claims that he was binned for his dissenting views rather than actions, I just want to note that the deletion incident has been followed by various other acts of unpleasantness, including comments maliciously signed in other editors' names ([4],[5],[6]). ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Fuck off you feckless clown, you weren't invited here. The fact that you see that as 'malicious', and not as 'a laugh' is what makes you into such a boring twat. Do go off somewhere and edit a category or something, you insufferable dullard.
By the way Tom, this isn't a debate. Its full of the same old RWisms. Nothing concrete, nothing empirical. Just whiny, generic teenage angsty crap. At least say something intelligent. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It took only one reply before you started breaking one of the few actual rules to which you agreed, no foul language. Plus, you are already at the point where you're attacking me personally and declaring just how clever you are and how well you fooled me. If it only took one reply to bring you to that point, then I don't see much else that can result here.
Combine that with my satisfaction with my statement, and we're done. If you want someone else to beat on you, fine. But try not to embarrass yourself.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


Is that really it? My respect for you has plummeted to a new low. I'll take this as the archetypical 'I've nothing to come back with so I'll cry 'foul play' response. You are better than this Tom. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You agreed to terms that you then broke. This means TomMoore is entitled to declare a win, no matter if he is completely wrong or not. A halter awaits the word-breaker. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
By that logic TomMoore broke the rules before me. He insulted me in the previous post, several times. Which makes Plus, you are already at the point where you're attacking me personally and declaring just how clever you are and how well you fooled me. If it only took one reply to bring you to that point, then I don't see much else that can result here. Combine that with my satisfaction with my statement, and we're done. If you want someone else to beat on you, fine. But try not to embarrass yourself. all of this completely contradictory. He broke those rules before me.
Face it Tom, you have nothing to come back with because all of your snares didn't work. I'm willing to continue this in a rational manner, if you are. I promise not to use 'foul language' again if you really want. It really is a struggle with me though, I don't have this American angst when it comes to the use of foul language - I 'F' and blind all the time, I grew up in a rough area and thats just the way I talk. I can't help it and don't really mean any malice by it. Also, why won't you respond to the 'vabndal bin' point? I don't see how I'm being unfair really. MarcusCicero (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
No, only you broke the rules. "No foul language. Sarcasm and insults are certainly allowed". -- =w= 22:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
"Why won't you respoooooooooooooooond?" Don't whine, MC. We're done now. Shoo.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


Mei; in that case, the only rule I broke is 'foul language', for which I'm sorry. (Though I have tried to explain why I don't understand why its such a big deal, I can only assume its something to do with Tom's nature) The other 'rule breakings' were broken equally by Tom and myself, which you admit were not actually rules.
Tom; please respond. Don't take the easy way out. You may have the backslapping of your thoughtless friends on RW, but you certainly don't have a shread of self respect. I doubt even you think you are being intellectually honest with yourself. I told Nutty Roux last night over gmail chat that you were the only RWian I have any respect for. I'm finding it hard to justify that here, when you are so blatently ducking from a debate because you have no way of answering without incriminating this site. MarcusCicero (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
You admitted you went on a vandalism spree, explicitly stating it in as many words. And since you have also admitted that you're not sincere in your critiques, there's nothing more to discuss. People who vandalize get put in the vandal bin.
You can knock off the flattery, seriously. It just makes me cringe to read it, and your tattered dignity can ill-afford your pleading. Just go back to telling us how meaningless we are and how we are just your puppets, while you try to pull yourself away. Oh, I forgot... it was all an elaborate ploy! You aren't really an incredibly pathetic troll who can't make himself leave... you're just messing with us!
Yeah, you sure got me good.
Done.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 23:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I suppose I should thank you Tom. Call this my parthian shot, if you will. It is merely a moment of clarity which you helped to fruition. I guess the key insight you offer here is that even one of the most intelligent rationalwikians is sorely lacking in a capacity of irony, or intellectual honesty. Seriously, the degree to which you lot resemble aspergers sufferers doesn't bear thinking about, really. This is the last post you will ever see from 'MarcusCicero'. And I wasn't even trying to troll in this thread. If I wanted to talk to a vegetable, I would have went to Tesco. Goodbye. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Call this my parthian shot, if you will. What's that, three of those for you in the last couple of months? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Meidebate[edit]

Topic: Whatever Mei wants to argue with MC about.

Terms: One at a time. No foul language. Be nice to Mei. She goes first. — Unsigned, by: TomMoore / talk / contribs

Debate:

I am prepared to endure this parlour game, if it amuses Mr. TomMoore. I propose the debate topic, That Mei personifies everything that is base about the internet. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Mei accepts this topic and challenges you to defend that assertion. -- =w= 19:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Troll

Peanut gallery[edit]

oooh. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Now no one can say I did not try to keep unnecessary goofiness out of this debate. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep the chatter to a minimum, please. Your efforts are reflected in the logs. Your post was both unnecessary and unproductive. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Troll

Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Debate:The_Dialogue_of_the_Deaf&oldid=2312273"