Forum:Unnecessarily long and controversial thread about the Cumbria rampage and questions as to Andy's silence on the topic

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How long before........[edit]

....those sick idiots at CP post something to the effect that 12 people wouldn't have died in Cumbria if everybody had guns and had shot back? Mick McT (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is bad, bad, bad shit. We aren't used to this kind of shit here in the UK. Hopefully even Assfly et al won't try to politicise it. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, he sooo will. All Brits are atheist, gunless morons (except for guys like the mass killer who had largely defensive weapons of gun).--Brendiggg (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
People dying can always be slanted to an agenda. I just hope they don't snicker when they write it up. This is no laughing matter. Jimaginator (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You guys can dream. The facts are, Britain is dominated by atheists and people don't have guns to defend themselves from them. The shooting is a logical outcome of that scenario. That's legitimately how Andy sees this. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is just horrible. I'm hoping (in vain, as Andy has proved time and time again that he has no sense of when to shut the fuck up and show a bit of respect) that Andy just leaves this. But as NU points out, he won't. SJ Debaser 17:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I hope it doesn't turn out this guy is an atheist or we'll all hear a tremendous 'boing!' sound coming from the direction of New Jersey as Andy gets the biggest boner of his life. DickTurpis (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
If he is Christian (and he probably isn't), he's likely to be Anglican which is atheism in a devious cloak.--Brendiggg (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Even if he was a true Christian, the pressures and influences of atheism obviously got to him. Death is the wage of living in an atheistic society for Christians and atheists alike. " is something I'd expect. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Lurker here. I like you guys, but by pre-emptively suggesting that Andy might use this tragedy to further his own ideology, aren't you at least fractionally guilty of the same thing? (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not the same thing, but I could see how some people believe it is. Most people think the publicized deaths of strangers should only be discussed with the utmost reverence. For those who don't, there's nothing wrong with speculations about Andy's reaction. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This "ooh, let's see what Andy says about this" attitude is in very bad taste. If you don't like it when CP use real life tragedies to make political cheap shots, then don't do the exact same fucking thing. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Andy's fucking insane" is not a political cheap shot. Get off your high horse. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Fox News readers are already on it. EddyP (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You weren't kidding! wow... P.S. the Fox News comment system is the biggest joke... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Goddammit, I hate those types of Americans. Fuckin' gun-toting, redneck, America-is-the-best-country-in-the-world cunts. SJ Debaser 18:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
They're smart cookies though - after a commenter points out that last year there were 14 gun murders in the UK compared to 9500-odd in the US, a reply points out that "HEY djmiles why not have some intellicutal honesty, the population of the USA might be at least thousand times that of Britian." Superb. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually with BoN and Weasel a bit on this, we are slightly guilty in that pre-empting the Assfly on this we are guilty of the same bad taste, but in our defence we have seen this so many times from him - if we didn't expect him to abuse a tragedy we wouldn't mention it. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I acknowledge that some people think it's in bad taste, but taste is in the mouth of the beholder, unless you want to go Assfly and claim that this is objectively bad taste. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no bad taste in anticipating bad taste.--Brendiggg (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this have been in the SB anyway, since CP hasn't commented on it yet? X Stickman (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
That will have to be debated. But in the mean time, Andy is awake and arguing that speculation about who will get the Gore's house in the divorce is not idle talk about personal affairs of others. By the time we figure it out, it'll be on the main page. Has drudge/breitbart/wnd not picked it up yet? You'd think CP would be all over this... — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Most people think the publicized deaths of strangers should only be discussed with the utmost reverence. For those who don't, there's nothing wrong with speculations about Andy's reaction" - by the same argument, it's hard to see what would be so wrong with old Schlaffers using the killings as Bioglide for expressing his stupid opinions on the UK, but the impression I get from the above discussion is that it would be pretty awful of him to do just that. Obviously the suggestion itself isn't out of this world, given his sickening 'for those keeping the score' postings everytime someone in the entertainment industry dies, but if Andy does indeed invoke this tragedy to bolster an opinion, I don't see how you can say you aren't guilty of the same thing and to that extent as bad as him (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you rephrase? I'm guilty of _____ ? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
To rephrase: You'd be guilty of jumping on a tragedy to bolster your opinion. I wasn't referring to you personally, Neveruse. My point is there's an inherent double standard in saying "This tragedy was awful - and Andy, nasty bastard that he is, will probably use it to make a point!" but that appears to be the thrust of some of the discussion above. However, I am starting to tie myself in knots and am feeling I should godspeed my way out of here. (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I think I understand what you're saying about what we're doing. I agree that the tragedy is awful and in a way I'm using it to make a point. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, just a couple days ago when I projected from Coleman to Hopper, Suspected Replicant was all over me deleting the comment and yelling at me on my talk page. Oh well, c'est la vie. (PS, CP never mentioned Hopper's passing, as far as I could tell) ħumanUser talk:Human 20:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to stay away but just noticed this post now so apologies to Human for not giving Mick McT and the other supporters of this bullshit the kicking they deserve before now.
People, trying to make a joke along the lines of "I bet teh Assfly will maek joak abowt tis! And it wil be teh funnie!!!!!!1!" is NOT cool. It is simply crap. There are plenty of cases where Andy DOES do this, and at one point it would have been worth highlighting them. Now, since so many daft twats here keep jumping the gun and posting what they think he will say, the entire point is lost.
Andy says enough stupid things without people having to put words in his mouth. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you're all missing the real point here. How long before CP and Assfly jump on the *next* shooting/bombing/etc.???! Oh the humanity. I'm already building up the bile and am prepared to be fully outraged. MaxAlex Swimming pool 06:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The last few spree killings, someone here has posted a "what will that evil bastard Andy say about this one" comment, only for CP to say... nothing at all. This really does paint RW in a bad light, and I agree with the comments that it makes us no better to be thinking of a "we're better than you" angle in relation to a tragedy. Bondurant (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Every one of the haters reminds me of Assfly saying that the beauty of foliage is quantifiable. You don't like our speculation. We get it. Don't participate. You're not "right" about this. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Who on earth are you to say that I should not express my opinion, or that my opinion is not "right"? Bondurant (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The bitching is kind of pointless, and of course your opinion isn't right, unless you've bought the Andyism that the correctness of things like this are quantifiable. What a little bitch. "Who are you to say my opinion isn't right!?" Me and every other god damn person on this earth. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm just voicing my opinion about our own behaviour. Or are we only allowed here to post our opinions about what Conservapedia says (or in this particular case, hasn't said)? Do I have to go over to Rationalwikiwiki before I can comment on things that are said here?
People have been brutally murdered, families and communities torn apart. And the out of Rationalwiki and Conservapedia, the only one to have tried to make some kind of political point about it is.... That's right, folks, Rationalwiki. Bondurant (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out that you don't like your opinions being criticized either. It's a personal matter as to what is right or wrong. If you don't understand that, you don't belong here. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You telling me my opinion is "wrong" is different to you saying that you disagree with my opinion. The first implies that my opinion is not even valid. And why did you say I was a "hater?" Bondurant (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It's so wrong for you to be making points over this tragedy. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree. Bondurant (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A high horse is also a slippery slope. Your criticism is essentially hypocritical. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If that is what you think, then you don't understand the meaning of the word. You seem to be saying that if someone uses a tragedy to make a political point, then anybody who complains about it is guilty of hypocrisy. So we should just shut up. Is that what you are saying? Bondurant (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Precisely! You can't enter into a conversation like this without fueling the fire you so desperately want put out. People died, man. Do you really want to keep up this awful conversation over that? It makes us no better to be thinking of a "we're better than you" angle in relation to a tragedy. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a world of difference to one person using a tragedy to make a point, and another person saying, "hey, you shouldn't be doing that" Bondurant (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
So if Andy had used the tragedy to make a point, you'd be fine with our comments. Interesting. I would have figured you'd still be up there. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Well - duh! - haven't I been saying all along that it's wrong to use a tragedy like this to make a political point? You get a gold star. Bondurant (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so it's somehow objectively "wrong" for me to make a point (which I didn't realize I was doing, but I guess I'll take it that you think I've made a point, let alone a "political point" lol) about a tragedy. It's perfectly okay for you to make a political point about my point about a tragedy, because you fail to realize that your political point is still, in essence, about the tragedy, you self-loathing half-wit. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Troll Can we please let this section die? -- Nx / talk 16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Only if you can bear not to comment in it. {{DFTT}} is nothing but troll food and you know it, troll. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Reality check[edit]

All this leads to the question: Why isn't Andy using this as an example? It's been reported in conservative land. It happened in atheist Britain. British people don't carry guns. The weapon of gun is largely defensive. Andy using this is as logical as 2+2=4. Someone must have gotten to him about how using murders to push political points makes him look, but who could that possibly be? — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually based on CDG and ZB archives, I think it's far more likely that someone said "they're just waiting for you to mention it on the Vandal Site(tm)(c), if you don't you'll drive them into a frothing rage, which will be funny and serve them right, plus foreshadow what hell will be like for them and so on and so forth. THAT argument would probably latch on to AS. (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
First, let me say that the whole "putting RW in a bad light" thing is a bit tenuous. We aren't putting this stuff on the mainpage or even WIGO CP, individuals are signing comments on a talk page.
Anyway, BON above is saying what I was thinking earlier. We all know TK reads talk wigo cp religiously. We know there are back channels at CP that are quite active. We know TK and Andy are on those channels. So when we put our feet in our mouths and engage in "pre-gloating", it's almost certain that TK will warn Andy.
Which does raise the amusing idea of playing this technique to the hilt, and intentionally trying to head them off at the pass. Nah... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If our awful, horrible speculation which has put RW in a bad light has somehow deterred Andy from gloating about murder, I'd say this vandal site has done some good. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)