Most cheap bikes don’t always go together nicely so hammering, filing, cutting and cursing with mechanical sympathy are prerequisites. IIRC the CRC target was 12 bikes per day, unless you were related to the owners and your daddy was the warehouse manager…in which case one or two bikes was acceptable and you could spend most of your day ****ing around on forklifts, smoking fags, looking at porn on your phone etc.

sv

[whisper] The IRA killed more Catholics than anybody else[\whisper]

Yeah, Cromwell probably begs to differ.

sv

Kicking the heck out of them in 1690, its now just another excuse for a drinking session. Leave them alone and it’ll go away, its purposely stirred up on both sides and then we get recreational rioting/bigotry/hatred. That then keeps both extreme parties in business for another while.

They were formed as a sectarian murder gang in 1795* and they were backed militarily by the Irish Volunteers (essentially British army reserves). The Order has always been inextricably linked to sectarian murder and more recently loyalist terrorism. Loyalist paramilitary bands make up half of the bands on the 12th, it’s only recently that the BBC have tried to edit them out. The order still acts as a credit union for it’s members with the precise purpose of keeping land out of catholic hands. Which is nice.

The fact a blind eye is turned to giant bonfires, loyalist flags, painted kerb stones and millions each year is spent enabling them to march “traditional routes” is tacit approval of the blatant discrimination catholics have suffered for literally hundreds of years. It represents much more than a piss up, it’s an open display of sectarianism, militarism,  oppression and entitlement.

*pesky Catholics were disgruntled at being unable to vote, teach, own land, own weapons, adopt orphans, inherit land, own a horse worth more than £5 etc etc

oldmanmtb

The IOM TT is the last great test of a human beings abilıty to step in to the arena (in the first world any way) and risk your life in pursuit of glory.

That’s your perception, and of course you’re entitled to your opinion but outside of the road racing scene it’s just a motorbike race. People involved/fans of in a given sport will romanticise it.

The IOM layes bare the “softness” in all of us, for me Ian Bells death last year really hurt as i had known him for many years, but I doubt he would have swapped one minute of the island for a life less ordinary.

Again, I wouldn’t petition to ban it, motorsports are fun, risk and danger are part of it but does death have to be a part of it? There will always be men who push everything to the limits to prove they are the best at something, it’s not always wise to give them a platform.

tjagain

The thing about these orange order marches are they are deliberately stirring up trouble and religious hatred.

Its all about religious bigotry, nothing about practising religion.

Its the equivalent of the national front marching through southall

Aaaand welcome to the last 200 odd years of Orangeism in Ireland. The only difference in Scotland being that they haven’t been bolstered by political and military support at all levels of government.

pondo

People make the comparison between IoM and F1 in the sixties and seventies, and I’ll tell you what I see as the difference – for F1, the danger and loss of life was seperate and unecessary to the sport, but the very nature of real road racing is that risk to life is very, very real.

If I recall correctly (going by the BBC doc) weren’t people indifferent or opposed to making F1 safer at the time because it was seen as a normal part of the culture? A lot of the tracks were on roads or partial road and circuit. Is it the road circuit aspect that you’re describing as intrinsic and necessary or is it the danger?

for anyone that races superbikes on the roads, the risk should be mitigated as much as possible but the sport is fundamentally limited by the roads it races on – accept the risk or not. It saddens me inordantely every time someone passes, but I applaud and fully support the right of racers to race where they choose.

I support people’s right to do dangerous sports if they wish, but the TT (and similar road racing events here in Ireland) make me uncomfortable for a couple of reasons. When people die (as they inevitably do) the outpouring is almost always the same, he knew the risks, died doing what he loved etc, ride on forever etc etc but I don’t entirely buy that and the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Children, especially younger children can’t possibly understand or condone what their fathers are doing and the extent to which wives/partners want their husbands to race vs tolerate it will vary.

Not all deaths are glorious, and not all sacrifices are meaningful. If a rider died at every World Cup Downhill race would it be acceptable to the wider fan base? If not why not.

What’s the upper acceptable limit for deaths at a road race like the TT? One to five seems tolerable. What would happen if 15 or 16 riders die? Right it off as a bad year and try again next year?I wouldn’t seek to ban it, or tell people not to do it but I think the bikes are now far to fast for the courses and road racing culture has to be honest with it’s self about the importance of what they are doing vs the risks.

Prior to the referendum in Ireland there were several high profile cases of mothers dying due to known complications during pregnancy (I can’t remember the correct terminology) wherin doctors could have saved the mother’s life but where unable to act due to legislation.

It might be too big a statement for one person to make (or back up) but my impression is that most people are ethically pro life, but there have to be provisions in place to prevent women from dying / worst case scenarios. Anyway, I digress.

When Arlene goes over can you just keep her please? It’s British culture she loves so dearly, she’ll fit right in.

Mattyfez

Mix ups and mistakes happen,

mistakes happen, but blatant disregard for customers in favour of penny pinching and corner cutting also happens.

I recall (back in the day working at CRC) trying to source a Ragley mech hanger for a customer. The customer had been unable to use their bike for 6 weeks or so and was at their wits end so I phoned “House Brands” directly and asked if they had any hangers.

“No” came the reply, and the phone was slammed down. I phoned back to inquire when they would actually be in stock (the due date had been 2 weeks for about 6 weeks) – “What does it say on the website?”  – I said the site says two weeks but …“Then it’s two weeks” and the phone was slammed down again, without any kind of pleasantry or apology.

After a little digging I found out that the next years model of the frame/bike (with the exact same hanger) was in the warehouse, though not available for sale yet, so I phoned House Brands again.

“Is there any chance you could take a mech off one of the new frames for this customer? The customer has been very reasonable but they really are starting to get frustrated with our inability to sort this problem.

“You obviously know **** all about customers! All they ****ing do is moan and complain. He can ****ing wait, I’m away home”. It was about 3:40 on a Friday evening and on that note I had to go back and tell the customer  (face to face) that I was very sorry but I was unable to source their hanger. And this was from a person with zero customer facing responsibility.

So…..yeah. The op might want to reconsider their brand loyalty to a company who treats their customers like that. Just sayin’.

arrpee

However the on-day upper weight limit just seems ridiculously unsafe.

I think California have a rule to that effect – A fighter must not weigh 10 or 12% more than their weigh in weight come fight night. Suffice to say, if you can’t safely be at 188lbs, you shouldn’t ever be 170. One FC have the right idea, or close to it.

Very nearly time for Till to weigh in again….wouldn’t be surprised if there are further complications.

tjagain

geetee is misogynistic. His posts over a long period of time prove it. Fair comment.

I disagree. He’s made posts about mens issues this doesn’t = misogyny. Furthermore, you said “crusade completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male”. There’s no such well proven bias, but you bring race into it to double down on just how vile he must be. He denies something which can’t be proven, defined or quantified in any way, therefore he’s a racist too. Believe in my god or you’re evil by default.

I really do believe Geetee to be mentally fragile

And yet you bring up to score points in a debate, that’s not the behaviour of someone who cares for another’s well being, that’s what you do when you’re resorting to the lowest possible tactics to undermine the credibility of your victim.

There are at least three, maybe four forum members who I think are suffering from serious mental health issues, or perhaps substance issues. I’ve decided to completely refrain from replying to or debating with or addressing them in any way for fear of pushing them over the edge. Geetee isn’t one of them imo, but if you genuinely believe what you say you should adopt the same tact.

I have in the past been emailed off forum by another poster asking me to back of from putting Geetee right on his prejudicial views for ( that persons) fear of the damage it does to his psyche.

You’re doing it again.

gobuchul

Junkyard is a case in point, an annoying shit but did he ever do anything that bad to warrant a ban?

That depends doesn’t it. From my perspective (ie that of someone who knows he’ll be banned for calling someone an idiot) he was guilty of ban worthy behaviour every post, every day. From the perspective of someone with the bullet proof moral authority to question people’s mental health, call them a racist, misogynist, nazi etc without fear of any rebuke ever, then no.

He was encouraged by and thrived in the STW mob culture. I even saw posts where mods made inferences of “letting him at/ setting him on” posters who were on the wrong side of the political fence.

tjagain

Jimjam – there is only one side throwing insults around on this thread.

tjagain

Geetee – why do you have this misogynistic crusade completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male in our world?

tjagain

I have refrained from commenting on your threads recently because I feel you might be fragile mentally but really dude =- go and get some counselling to open your mind.

Sorry, you were saying?

Your channel intro needs to be 30 seconds to 1:30 max. The graphics, well, don’t use those graphics. Look at Harry’s Garage for example of clean simple and appropriate graphics / style. If you’re going to do a long format video then tease or cut in some of the highlights at the start – I’ll watch a 20 minute video if I know there’s something of interest in it but I’m not going to sit through it in hope.

Cougar

I am arguing that there should be a burden of proof on someone leveling serious accusations and insults.

And that’s so very very difficult to prove / police because it’s subjective.  We’re going round in circles now.  Unless you’re arguing in favour of moderatorial censorship ‘just in case’ and as I’ve already said, that’s not a forum I want any part in.

It’s not subjective in the slightest, you just see it as such because it has become the norm to either make allusions to, or simply flat out accuse people of the worst possible things in order to gain an unearned sense of moral superiority while trashing someone’s name/reputation/character. It seems that even questioning someone’s mental health or attributing their opinions to psychological problems is also fair game in the spirit of “competitive debating”.

If it’s “subjective” then “aggression” is also subjective, and yet there was no deep pondering or thought given to banning me for using the word idiot in response to being called an idiot. You can argue semantics all you want but a decision was still made by anonymous individuals to issue a ban over something so innocuous. The culture the moderators and owners have created here is one where the benefit of the doubt will always be given to the posters who sling the worst insults and conflate organizations who perpetrated some of the worst crimes in human history with someone who merely disagrees with them politically. If you can’t see this you have a serious problem.

You want no part in a forum with “moderatorial consorship” and yet you’re part of one that has no impartiality, no concept of fairness or good faith and one where anyone not in the clique is constantly treading on eggshells while slanderers and liars act with complete impunity all the while pretending to be honest interlocutors.

No, for the third time now, the bar was set at you ignoring previous warnings.

The bar was set at “abuse”  and “idiot” (in reply to “idiot”  still constituted a breach of a (5 month old) warning …. I find myself wondering how many warnings have been issued for much more serious behavior on this thread.

Well, you appear to be arguing in favour of moderating the accusation regardless of its truth. If I’m wrong then either you’ve made your point badly or I’ve horribly misunderstood.

I am arguing that there should be a burden of proof on someone leveling serious accusations and insults.

cougar

My apologies, I misunderstood. I thought that’s what you were saying we already do, rather than a suggestion as to what we should do. Cheerfully withdrawn, sorry.

Apology accepted.

And if the target is actually a rapist (great example by the way, you must be very proud),

Not proud, chosing an insult or inference that carries a serious social stigma in the hope that you will understand the seriousness of accusing someone of racism or nazi sympathies.

do we protect the rapist and warn / delete post / ban the accuser?

Do I need to answer that? Did I make my point so badly?

Your ‘it’ll be a ban next time’ warning was in November 2016. Your suspension was in April 2017. Did you not check your emails for five months?

Regardless, the bar or level at which banning offense was set was deemed to be calling someone an idiot. No doubt if I had called someone an idiot for voting to leave the EU it would have gone completely unchallenged. Feel free to post “the straw which broke the camel’s back” the serious breach of the rules which meant a five month old warning was enforced with a three week ban then let people decide whether it was biased or not. An apology would be quicker, or you could post my “racist” anti Irish post which I was also banned for so that everyone can see what a horrible racist I am.

Cougar

You police it by (as a mod) interjecting that people using serious baseless ad homs without concrete proof will be banned/suspended.

Liar, again.

So now I’m a liar (again) for directly replying to your question as to how to moderate, with a suggestion as to how you should moderate? Hopefully anyone following will be able to see your use of the word liar is interesting at best. Should I check my emails now in case I’ve crossed some mod/ban/warning line in the sand I wans’t aware of?

In your opinion.

Two sides are slurring each other, who’s right? Either / both / neither? Do we stymie discussion on both sides in favour of the notion that no-one can ever say something negative ever?

I dunno…if someone calls someone a rapist, you could consult the dictionairy and check what the word rapist means, then see if it applies in the context it was used. Radical ideas I know.

You weren’t banned for “a” post. I’ve already explained this once, do keep up.

Yes, I was banned for not checking my emails. Post the exchange I was banned for then. Or post the “racist” post I, as an Irish man made against the Irish.

I answered this already too.

Liar.

RustySpanner

Again, I never said it was.

jimjam

If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay. Just let me know so I can do that too.

Rustyspanner

Just let me know so I can do that too.

No need.

Wow an entire post of empty hyperbolic fear mongering, shit stirring, and reactionary crap

Seems to me as though you’re making a pretty direct equivalence between shit stirrer and nazi sympathiser there. If I’ve misunderstood you, please clarify your intentions. Happy to debate it with you.

RustySpanner

But whining when someone does the same to you is a bit childish.

It’s not “the same” though RustySpanner….that’s the point. If you think it is you have a serious problem.

If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay.

Of course it’s not ok.  But you know as well as I do how the competitive debating goes on STW (and indeed on the Internet in general, this isn’t a unique phenomenon).  People will use whatever turns of phrase they choose in order to point score.  How do you suggest we police that?

Competitive debating? You police it by (as a mod) interjecting that people using serious baseless ad homs without concrete proof will be banned/suspended.

Say someone calls someone else a racist for making what could be construed as racist comments. Do we moderate the “insult” or do we moderate the “racist”? Essentially you’re asking the moderators to take sides and to provide censorship, and that’s no forum moderation I want any part in.

Words have meanings, definitions. Racist would roughly be viewing people of other ethicities as inferior based on race/ethnicity. Nazi / Nazi sympathise – sympathetic to or supportive of the views and goals of nazis. It’s not “he voted to leave the eu”, therefore Nazi. You don’t have to take sides to identify slurs.

I received a three week ban for calling someone an idiot,

Liar.

You received a three week ban (well over a year ago) now after cumulative warnings.  The last one before your ban said “You’ve been warned a few times now, next time will result in some time off.”  No-one in the history of the forum ever has received a three week ban for “calling someone an idiot” in isolation.

Post the post that I was banned for then? I wasn’t checking my emails every 10 seconds just in case I’d crossed the line of what STW considers “competitive debating” so was completely oblivious to any warnings, also why not post a warning in the thread itself? So you have an excuse to ban someone who wasn’t obeying the “rules”. I was banned for three weeks for calling someone an idiot. I was also banned for being a “racist” following a post wherein I used stereotypical anti Irish rhetoric to make an ironic point. I’m Irish, I make no secret of that and my IP should make it pretty bloody clear. Again, heavy handed biased moderating against anything perceived as questioning the echo chamber.

Are you seriously arguing that you want stricter moderation?

Impartial moderation. Is that too much to ask for?

Do you think “shit stirrer” and “nazi sympathiser” carry equal weight? Would wearing a t shirt with each slogan be equally problematic? Would self applying the term on say, a Facebook biography be equally contentious?

Happy to debate it with you.

Rusty

Is that the kind of thing you’re likely to do?

Me? No. Of course not. I can’t say the same for some of the ideologically obsessed posters who seem compelled to destroy people on this forum because they disagree with them.

Do you think “shit stirrer” and “racist” or “nazi sympathiser” are equal in terms of seriousness? Happy to debate it with you.

And please, post the examp of me calling someone a Nazi or racist.

You’ve been careful not to use those terms but many who share your opinions have no qualms in doing so.

Rusty

And fearmongering shit stirrer doesn’t?

Good grief.

Take a look at yourself mate…..

Say I email your employer tomorrow (assuming you have one). Rusty Spanner is a racist and here’s why….or Rusty Spanner is a shit stirrer, and here’s why. Do you think they carry equal meaning or importance or weight?

I can’t remember the famous Shit Stirrer trials and subsequent hangings.

Take a look at yourself indeed.

Any chance you could reply? Happy to debate it with you.

You do realise those words have meaning?

RustySpanner

Wow an entire post of empty hyperbolic fear mongering, shit stirring, and reactionary crap

Yours, a reactionary, fear mongering shit stirrer.

And where in that post do you see an ad hom comparable to “racist” or “Nazi” ?

huckleberryfatt

If you think biology is irrelevant, if you think women don’t suffer discrimination and disadvantage because of biology, you clearly haven’t been following the news in Ireland. Not a single biological male – whatever gender they identify as – has ever died of sepsis due to being denied an abortion while miscarrying. Not one.

Sorry but that right there is transmisogynist hatred.

cougar

I’m not having that.

Since when has the inability for some users to hold a civil conversation been the moderators’ fault?

You’ve been contributing the thread, so presumably you’ve been reading it. If personal insults and vile personal abuse is okay, then it’s okay. Just let me know so I can do that too.  I was under the impression it wasn’t. Mod innactivity while people are labeled misogynist, nazi, wife beater, racist etc is tacitly condoning this behavior.

I received a three week ban for calling someone an idiot, in reply to them calling me an idiot. and yet we here we have people pouring on egregious, slanderous insults and blatant bullying.

Would you prefer more rigorous censorship?

I’d prefer consistency and impartiality. Too much to ask?

You know where the Report Post links are if you think someone is “attacking” someone else.

So if you personally see pornographic or offensive material do you wait to until it’s reported? If you see direct personal attacks, bullying or abuse do you wait until it’s reported? Are you incapable of acting until someone reports the post?

Malvern Rider

ill-judged

Yes certainly. At best. If it turns out that the killer was involved in some kind of ultra-misogynist online cult then ‘ill-judged’ wouldn’t begin to describe my thoughts on JPs comments.

To be honest MR I think that this incel thing probably merits it’s own thread, perhaps even another thread about Dr.JP’s relevance to them would be in order since I really struggle to believe he would or could mean that much to them.  Virtually everything I’ve heard from Peterson which would fall under “advice to men” in the broadest sense would be exactly the kind of thing you would say to someone to discourage an “incel” mentality. Take responsibility, sort your life out, start making changes, don’t blame other people, if all women are the problem then really, you’re the problem and so on and so forth.

With regards to “angry at god” I believe that Peterson (rightly or wrongly) views this incel attacker in similar terms to U.S school shooters. The Columbine killers made a lot of incel type complaints in their journals… there’s a video of Peterson talking about them (and other mass killers out there somewhere).

jimjam: With regards to making baseless accusations / attributing bad motivations to forum members please remember that in the context of this thread everyone defending Peterson’s opinions, (or just his right to speak his opinions in a way that he wants) have been labled as nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, wife beaters and more besides.

Not by me they haven’t.

You made allusions to hyper-masculinity, marital rape, no equality for women, slut shaming etc etc

And I might suggest you be more specific and address those commenters/quote them, otherwise it just explodes into useless generalising counter-strikes, forced bipartisan bollocks, cultic chaos and assumptive madness with no beginning or end.

This is exactly what it has been from page 1 and it’s all par for the course on STW where the mods and the culture in general emboldens people to insult and attack people with opinions which contradict the hive. Are you suggesting there hasn’t been constant bullying, insults and abuse?  Addressing specific commentators and quoting them would only lead to more acrimony and negativity and detract from the tiny minority of people interested in honest debate.

tj

Geetee – why do you have this misogynistic crusade

Difference of opinion represented in entirely negative insulting and personal terms. Again.

completely denying the well proven bias against anyone who is not white and male in our world?

?

Bellator 200 on 5Spike tonight. Pretty good card for free tv. Then UFC Liverpool on Sunday – big night for MMA in the UK.

Malvern Rider

*Sorry jimjam, but your powers are again in question (and beyond my good-natured gif-teasing at this point) since I just read back you there accused me aforethought of the following mind-crime:

“wanting Geetee to reply in a way that allows you to ascribe the worst possible meaning to what he says’

Congratulations, you just used (even over-egged) a version of the same dishonest debate-crippling tactic that I’ve seen seen used by Kathy Newman and Fox News anchors, among many. Pretty sure I saw Peterson try it on Matt Dillahunty in their recent debate (where I also learned from The Self-Fulfilling Prophessor that I’m neither an ‘atheist’ or ‘Humanist’ otherwise I’d be out murdering, raping and building something called a ‘gulag’).

Mind-reading is one thing, but when it lapses into making baseless accusations to impute poor character upon our STW peers it might be time to have a word with self, preferably over the ironing. The fact that you are 180 degrees wrong might be something to take into account to help iron the bigger creases. Where did it even come from? Anyway, I’m agreeable enough to accept an honest apology, but I won’t accept shitty and utterly baseless accusations. Keep it civil eh? Or even lighthearted

Let me try to address all of your points and explain my confusion. It’s clear that you find Peterson’s comments on the attack to be ill informed, ill judged and seemingly baseless, or at best complete speculation. You’ve asked Geetee about this directly at least six times. Now I’m guessing you’re not going to participate in the upcoming Reddit ama with Peterson, but you could email him or use the [letter] function on his sub reddit and there’s a very real chance that he’ll reply. It appears to be something he does pretty regularly.

When I’ve tried to answer your query positing why I think Peterson might have said what he said you’ve dismissed it and mocked me for being psychic. Any answer Geetee gives can just be attributed to “psychic powers” too and thus easily dismissed as well so why insist on an answer from one specific individual and demand it multiple times?

With regards to making baseless accusations / attributing bad motivations to forum members please remember that in the context of this thread everyone defending Peterson’s opinions, (or just his right to speak his opinions in a way that he wants) have been labled as nazis, white supremacists, misogynists, wife beaters and more besides. If you genuinely want to know Peterson’s motivations ask Peterson. If you want to know Geetee’s so badly then be upfront as to why you specifically want his interpretation as opposed to anyone else and I’ll certainly apologise.

mikewsmith

Well I think in the last few pages plenty has been posted questioning JP’s statements, pointing out where he deviates from evidence to unsupported conclusions and where his views offend people. As it seems we always deviate from the topic when real questions are raised.

Yes, like the brilliantly clear definition of white privilege you gave. Seems perfectly justifiable to call someone a racist because they disagree with your definition of something you can’t quantify or describe.

Do you think they’re equivalent though? Do you think there’s an equal stigma around being a “left wing bigot” and a nazi?

Yeah, sadly it’s getting that way.

Sorry but that was a somewhat rhetorical question. Perhaps we’ll need to revisit that question when being a “left wing bigot” actually carries the same social stigma as the second most murderous regime of the 20th century.

JP has some points that need addressing.

So let’s address them, before they fester.

But let’s be honest and treat him with the same scepticism that we apply to everybody else.

Once again, his points are valid – everyone is entitled to a voice.

But…. his arguments just don’t stand up.

No insults, but the logic is pathetic. I’ve negotiated in boardrooms for pay settlements and defended my union members against some remakably intelligent people.

Pre Trump, fake news and that godforsaken Brexit vote it was all quite reasonable.

He’s nowhere near this level. he would be laughed out of the room.

So in other words, using your high powered perception and superior intellect you can cut through Jordan Petrson’s weak arguments like a knife. Well I have great news, he’s doing an AMA on Reddit tomorrow. Someone with your experience could really make a name for himself and no doubt quite a bit of money by exposing the great deceiver for the charlatan he really is.

Of course given the incredible career you’ve just alluded to you probably have no need for things like wealth or material gain but surely in the interests of setting the world to rights you should get involved and expose him? Failing that you could start your own Youtube channel wherin you could layout your rebuttals and counter arguments to Peterson’s fallacious and incoherent ramblings. Should be easily done. If money doesn’t motivate you then do it for the good of humanity.

mikewsmith

well I do wonder how you know what people are saying, what they really mean, what they were thinking and how they meant what they said???

Mike, you realise my speculation as to Peterson’s meanings by his “enforced monogamy” comment were pretty much what he came out and said a few nights ago? That is of course unless you are asking about the secret meaning he infers by criticizing the people he is supposed to lead by using a deliberately rambling, incomprehensible nonsensical pseudo speak.

I’m confused as to why anyone would constantly ask “what he means” by this or that comment then lash out claiming that any respondents were pretending to be psychic.

mikewsmith

Ah the magic prophet is back, providing insight into what people really said as opposed to what was written or said.

Yep, I was trained in the dark arts by high mage Peterson.

I was under the impression that Geetee had said that was in jest? Even if he meant it do you think “left wing bigot” is equal to “nazi” or “wife beater”? Seriously?

RustySpanner

Where did he say that?

My apologies, I only scanned the first page while woring outside and it looks like I picked up the wrong end of the stick. I do suspect it was intended to be playfully provocative rather than confrontational and insulting right off the bat.

And yes, left wing bigot is a pathetic insult, equally as abhorrent as the left wing ‘nazi’ jibe.

Do you think they’re equivalent though? Do you think there’s an equal stigma around being a “left wing bigot” and a nazi?

Northwind

Why? They’ve already been illustrated by the people stating them.

If they are completely contradictory it’s very difficult to engage with.

But twice in this thread you’ve slung someone else’s opinion at me as if it has anything to do with mine.

Sorry for doing that.

Rusty Spanner

Let’s get this sorted out then.

The op referred to left wing ‘biggots’.

My initial response, despite being benign, was met with insults, again from the OP.

I was under the impression that Geetee had said that was in jest? Even if he meant it do you think “left wing bigot” is equal to “nazi” or “wife beater”? Seriously?

Rusty Spanner.

JP’s supporters started with insults, yet don’t seem able to cope with them.

My memory must be a bit hazy, other than some light provocation from Geetee I’m struggling to remember any insults by “supporters”. Meanwhile the naysayers have thrown around terms like Nazi, misogynist, racist and virtually every variation and insinuation imaginable.If myself or geetee et al dared respond in kind with similarly aggregious and baseless slurs we’d be banned, but STW village rewards it’s acolytes when they throw around slurs like Nazi or wife beater.

You’re using the most disgusting and inflammatory accusations imaginable and then constantly acting as though you’re a totally impartial, rational actor.

Not one is prepared to engage in a rational debate

You’ve continually stated your willingness to debate but when I engaged with you about “white privilege”, even though you conceded that the term was grossly simplistic, inadequate and inaccurate you still maintained that it retained validity as it might apply to some people, some of the time despite being a completely loaded and divisive term. Then you buggered off despite having bumped the thread demanding a response from me every five minutes until you got one. Your pretense of calm rational open debater is totally transparent.

And no side burns.