User talk:69.60.33.176
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I've responded to two old comments of yours that went unnoticed. I hope you appreciate. --It's-a me, 
LeftyGreenMario! 04:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. I actually do. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Seen your August stuff. You probably need to stay off that topic since I don't think you understand it either --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not everything you don't agree with shows a lack of understanding. But either way, right or wrong, your fellow users are engaging in blatant censorship with ad hoc reasoning and that's frankly despicable. You can't disallow certain speech just because the position offends your sensibilities, at least not without looking like people that are threatened by the opposing position. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the flaw in your comment: you were describing a noun, not a pronoun, in a weak attempt at a gotcha. I'm somewhat unconvinced as to the utility of neo-pronouns myself, given their proliferation and the issues inherent in introducing new terms into any language, but I'm not so dismissive and arrogant as to pretend that linguistic purity is more important than people feeling able to participate in society, and define themselves in their terms. Describing a noun is not anything approaching a argument; and when you have no argument, we have no need to formally refute anything. Your histrionics about 'censorship' make it very clear it was a bad faith edit to begin with. Off you fuck. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- How could something something that could only be construed as semantics be a flaw in my reasoning? If every single non-binary person insisted on their own personal pet pronoun, it's functionally no different than a name. And people don't need to feel like they can participate in society; if there are no legal restrictions, they can. At what point must you stop molly-coddling someone to the point they "feel comfortable participating in society"? This isn't a case of being denied a service or even ask to not be mocked or insulted, the user is requesting a special privilege that they feel is unique to them and them alone, and that's beyond the realm of reasonable accommodation. You can cry until the cows come home about how unfair it is for someone not to bend to your personal wishlist of reverence, but if you're asking for a unique privilege, you don't get to act like someone's being an asshole for you demanding them something out of the norm. How could you be so pompous yet ignorant to think that just because I have a position that offends you that I have no argument? You're just a coward bully that doesn't feel confident in your own position so you have to try to silence me. But the record will show you as the moronic one here. "Excessive stupidity" is argument by assertion for your censorship. Highly ironic you state me stating the facts is "histrionic" when my entire point is that this demanding of special reverence is the height of histrionic behavior. It's funny because that point makes no logical sense. How can me complaining about your censorship be evidence for my post being bad faith? You think I knew ya'll would delete my post before I even made it? Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Get bent, coward. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your original post was clearly bad faith. Your continued pretensions to martyrdom and intellectual rigour make you look silly. Your insistence that you're not mad about it is just darling. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- You can't even address my points, you just fall back on pathetic arguments by assertion and ad hominem. Walk away with your tail between your legs because you know that you're out of your depth. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I take it back, your internet tough-guy act is even funnier. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- And your implicit concession by way of continuing to insult me thinking it somehow hurts my feelings (because you assume I must be as fragile as you) strikes me as downright hilarious. What's your gameplan if your idiocy simply annoys me, or causes me to pity you instead of upsetting me like in your delusional fantasy? Doesn't this whole act seem just the faintest bit desperate? 69.60.33.176 (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- I take it back, your internet tough-guy act is even funnier. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- You can't even address my points, you just fall back on pathetic arguments by assertion and ad hominem. Walk away with your tail between your legs because you know that you're out of your depth. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 17:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Your original post was clearly bad faith. Your continued pretensions to martyrdom and intellectual rigour make you look silly. Your insistence that you're not mad about it is just darling. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- How could something something that could only be construed as semantics be a flaw in my reasoning? If every single non-binary person insisted on their own personal pet pronoun, it's functionally no different than a name. And people don't need to feel like they can participate in society; if there are no legal restrictions, they can. At what point must you stop molly-coddling someone to the point they "feel comfortable participating in society"? This isn't a case of being denied a service or even ask to not be mocked or insulted, the user is requesting a special privilege that they feel is unique to them and them alone, and that's beyond the realm of reasonable accommodation. You can cry until the cows come home about how unfair it is for someone not to bend to your personal wishlist of reverence, but if you're asking for a unique privilege, you don't get to act like someone's being an asshole for you demanding them something out of the norm. How could you be so pompous yet ignorant to think that just because I have a position that offends you that I have no argument? You're just a coward bully that doesn't feel confident in your own position so you have to try to silence me. But the record will show you as the moronic one here. "Excessive stupidity" is argument by assertion for your censorship. Highly ironic you state me stating the facts is "histrionic" when my entire point is that this demanding of special reverence is the height of histrionic behavior. It's funny because that point makes no logical sense. How can me complaining about your censorship be evidence for my post being bad faith? You think I knew ya'll would delete my post before I even made it? Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Get bent, coward. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 16:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here is the flaw in your comment: you were describing a noun, not a pronoun, in a weak attempt at a gotcha. I'm somewhat unconvinced as to the utility of neo-pronouns myself, given their proliferation and the issues inherent in introducing new terms into any language, but I'm not so dismissive and arrogant as to pretend that linguistic purity is more important than people feeling able to participate in society, and define themselves in their terms. Describing a noun is not anything approaching a argument; and when you have no argument, we have no need to formally refute anything. Your histrionics about 'censorship' make it very clear it was a bad faith edit to begin with. Off you fuck. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
|
This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it.
We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify them. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. |