Opinion of publicunofficial

[ssuperflash]

It's been a while since I've started one of these...

[heatcharger]

Obvious FF.

[dead0man]

if its who I think it is, HP and the newest member on my ignore list

[Santander]

Massive HP

[LLR]

He's interesting...

Mixed, lean HP since he's kind of obnoxious and his views are eh

[publicunofficial]

They hate us cuz they ain't us

[Crumpets]

I like him, but I wasn't expecting this close of a result. Has he done something HP-worthy recently that I missed?

[DavidB.]

Literally hadn't noticed this person until yesterday, but seems pretty unhinged?

And my new policy is: If everyone on the right dropped dead tomorrow the rest of the world would be better off. I reaaaaaally don't care if I get banned for saying that.

[publicunofficial]

Literally hadn't noticed this person until yesterday, but seems pretty unhinged?

And my new policy is: If everyone on the right dropped dead tomorrow the rest of the world would be better off. I reaaaaaally don't care if I get banned for saying that.

Hey I'm sorry that was out of line. Here, let me make that post more palatable to you:

And my new policy is: If every Muslim  dropped dead tomorrow the rest of the world would be better off. I reaaaaaally don't care if I get banned for saying that

Better?

[DavidB.]

Because clearly everyone who doesn't support Muslim immigration wants all Muslims to die. Lmao. Yeah, the conclusion "pretty unhinged" still stands, sorry hon.

[publicunofficial]

I like him, but I wasn't expecting this close of a result. Has he done something HP-worthy recently that I missed?

Over the past week or so I've really upped the partisan trolling. I figure if people like Krazen are allowed to post here, then no one actually cares about the quality of this site's discussion and there's no reason or reward for being kind and courteous.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I like him, but I wasn't expecting this close of a result. Has he done something HP-worthy recently that I missed?

Over the past week or so I've really upped the partisan trolling. I figure if people like Krazen are allowed to post here, then no one actually cares about the quality of this site's discussion and there's no reason or reward for being kind and courteous.

     Sadly, it's this sort of attitude that has really exacerbated the political race-to-the-bottom that we're seeing, both on the forum and IRL. I voted HP and I disagree with your reasoning here, but hearing this does encourage me to take a more nuanced view of your posting history.

[Torie]

Do you guys freak out when you hear opinions that are offensive to you in real life, and lash out? If so, that's really sad. I would hate to live my life that way. In the end, the only real loser is you.

Oh one other thing, and you guys should really think about this. 35%-40% or so of the US population (the bulk of the folks who voted for Trump), have opinions that many of you loathe, and a few of you are now going full hyperbole and suggesting this place is harboring "Nazis" or something. Should everyone who likes Trump's ideas be banned? Is what you want is a safe zone, more akin than it is now to an echo chamber?  

The sad truth, but it is reality, is that when offensive opinions become much more popular, it does affect what content is beyond the pale. In 1860, when 75% of the population opposed banning slavery, favoring slavery would not have been a bannable offense, even though it would be now. That is the public square. What is bannable content has a lot to do with just how marginalized it is in society. Heck, until the 1970's, shrinks thought gays were mentally ill. In those days, many comments about gays would have been mainstream, that are ban bait now.

Yes, I know, perhaps the public square is going downhill. If you have that concern, well, it is one that I share. But this place is not going to become a safe zone.

[Mr. Morden]

Do you guys freak out when you hear opinions that are offensive to you in real life, and lash out?

Well, in BRTD's case, he does his best to restrict himself to precincts that are 90%+ Clinton, so that he never has to have a real life encounter with someone who has different political opinions. 

[SATW]

The Washington State Delegation here (particularly the D-WA's) is very solid and full of strong FFs (Crumpets, xīngkěruì, Fuzzy etc...). I enjoy interacting with most of the WA posters.

But publicunofficial is an HP, to me. For many of the reasons listed above. That being said, he's not the worst poster...not even close and I definitely his positive value here (when he isn't being super-aggressive).

[ag]

Do you guys freak out when you hear opinions that are offensive to you in real life, and lash out? If so, that's really sad. I would hate to live my life that way. In the end, the only real loser is you.

Depends. In most cases I cease any relationship with the offender. If it is impossible (it is a dear cousin, a childhood friend or even somebody closer) I make a point to have a nice public row. I do make an exception for some elderly uncles and aunts.

Then, again, I come from a family where even when we fully agree about politics, the neighbours might think we are about to burn the house down.

Ah, in the absence of a very good reason to continue a personal relationship, I, of course, make sure to cut that person out of my life.

[ag]

The sad truth, but it is reality, is that when offensive opinions become much more popular, it does affect what content is beyond the pale. In 1860, when 75% of the population opposed banning slavery, favoring slavery would not have been a bannable offense, even though it would be now. That is the public square. What is bannable content has a lot to do with just how marginalized it is in society. Heck, until the 1970's, shrinks thought gays were mentally ill. In those days, many comments about gays would have been mainstream, that are ban bait now.

So, you are suggesting that in 1936 if a cousin of yours in a casual conversation told you about the fun they had breaking windows in a Jewish store in Munich, you would still invite that guy to dinner, as you had intended at the start of the conversation? Nice to know.

[Torie]

The sad truth, but it is reality, is that when offensive opinions become much more popular, it does affect what content is beyond the pale. In 1860, when 75% of the population opposed banning slavery, favoring slavery would not have been a bannable offense, even though it would be now. That is the public square. What is bannable content has a lot to do with just how marginalized it is in society. Heck, until the 1970's, shrinks thought gays were mentally ill. In those days, many comments about gays would have been mainstream, that are ban bait now.

So, you are suggesting that in 1936 if a cousin of yours in a casual conversation told you about the fun they had breaking windows in a Jewish store in Munich, you would still invite that guy to dinner, as you had intended at the start of the conversation? Nice to know.

That is not a very good hypothetical unless I lived in Germany at the time, and further, even if much of the public square doesn't think an idea is beyond the pale, but I do, and I think it reflects on the character of the individual, I very much doubt I would choose to socialize with them in any way. This may shock you, but there are posters on this very forum with whom I would not socialize. Hope that helps. Oh, the part about someone being a close relative makes it more complicated. But then there was an aunt with whom I did not speak for 30 years.

[SATW]

Literally hadn't noticed this person until yesterday, but seems pretty unhinged?

And my new policy is: If everyone on the right dropped dead tomorrow the rest of the world would be better off. I reaaaaaally don't care if I get banned for saying that.

WTF. just noticed he said this. Mega-HP now. No redeeming qualities.

[muon2]

The sad truth, but it is reality, is that when offensive opinions become much more popular, it does affect what content is beyond the pale. In 1860, when 75% of the population opposed banning slavery, favoring slavery would not have been a bannable offense, even though it would be now. That is the public square. What is bannable content has a lot to do with just how marginalized it is in society. Heck, until the 1970's, shrinks thought gays were mentally ill. In those days, many comments about gays would have been mainstream, that are ban bait now.

So, you are suggesting that in 1936 if a cousin of yours in a casual conversation told you about the fun they had breaking windows in a Jewish store in Munich, you would still invite that guy to dinner, as you had intended at the start of the conversation? Nice to know.

To be honest, I know that in the 70's if there was an invitation to someone who routinely used the n-word, it wouldn't have been a barrier. It would be today. Heck, I was taught it in children's rhymes in the 60's, but was then taught not to use it just a few years later. That was the power of the civil rights movement. Could someone in 1960 have predicted how quickly that behavior would change from acceptable if impolite to completely unacceptable?

[ag]

The sad truth, but it is reality, is that when offensive opinions become much more popular, it does affect what content is beyond the pale. In 1860, when 75% of the population opposed banning slavery, favoring slavery would not have been a bannable offense, even though it would be now. That is the public square. What is bannable content has a lot to do with just how marginalized it is in society. Heck, until the 1970's, shrinks thought gays were mentally ill. In those days, many comments about gays would have been mainstream, that are ban bait now.

So, you are suggesting that in 1936 if a cousin of yours in a casual conversation told you about the fun they had breaking windows in a Jewish store in Munich, you would still invite that guy to dinner, as you had intended at the start of the conversation? Nice to know.

That is not a very good hypothetical unless I lived in Germany at the time, and further, even if much of the public square doesn't think an idea is beyond the pale, but I do, and I think it reflects on the character of the individual, I very much doubt I would choose to socialize with them in any way. This may shock you, but there are posters on this very forum with whom I would not socialize. Hope that helps. Oh, the part about someone being a close relative makes it more complicated. But then there was an aunt with whom I did not speak for 30 years.

So, you agree that merely being socially acceptable does not make it acceptable personally.

[muon2]

Moral cowards like Torie and muon2 are representative of the kind of people from their generation who have risen to leadership roles. I wish that this collective realization had come about earlier. We think of them as decent people while condemning the Sam Spades and jaichinds, but they're not any better and never have been. I fear that this will only become more abundantly obvious over the next several years.

Would you just erase the past? I can't. It existed and I was raised in it and it shaped my personality. I can change my behavior and share what I learned from that past. Social change affects every generation, and I have no doubt it will in the future affect those are are young adults today as well.

[publicunofficial]

Damn, I'm so boring that the thread dedicated to me gets veered off topic.

[JA]

Damn, I'm so boring that the thread dedicated to me gets veered off topic.

You can't even generate enough enthusiasm to keep a full page dedicated to hating you. That's low energy, my friend. Sad!

[Meclazine for Israel]

All good. Stands up for what he believes in.

Probably quite shocked still about the Trump Presidency.