Opinion of Fuzzy Bear

[Fuzzy Bear]

See, the part I don't get is why people think I'm a hypocrite.  I get why people may disagree strongly with me, particularly on the hot button issues of immigration and abortion, but why one would say I'm a hypocrite is beyond me.  Unless that's the standard insult some folks here reserve for Christians.

A hypocrite is an "actor", someone who poses as one thing, while truly being something else.  Now if you think some of my beliefs may be at odds with others, that's a different story, and I'll admit to being of two minds on some things. 

I would suggest to folks here that if I were really a hypocrite, it would be easy for me to advocate a position on abortion different from what I do.  That would be fine with a lot of folks who view me as a hypocrite; they would view me as having come to my senses then.  Of course, I would then be claiming my love for God while blowing off what I firmly believe His Will to be on that subject. 

So show me how I'm a hypocrite.  That ought to be good.

[Fuzzy Bear]

^ You forgot to directly address that to the one (1) person who called you that in this thread.

I'll get around to it.  I have a family to support, so I have to show up to work today.  Do you?

[Fuzzy Bear]

^ You forgot to directly address that to the one (1) person who called you that in this thread.

I'll get around to it.  I have a family to support, so I have to show up to work today.  Do you?

Yes to working today and yes to having a family to support, not that it matters.  Thank you for voluntarily allowing your bitter vindictive personality to briefly slip through the 'kindly grandpa' facade there.  Saves us the trouble of trying to pull it down to show the rest of the people you’re fooling.

I'm not bitter and vindictive, but I am competitive, and I'm going to push back when people dump on me personally.  This forum is full of folks that can dish it out, but not take it, unless they have 7 or 8 allied poised at their keyboard to provide backup.  You're one of those, but that's OK.  If there's ever been a thread here where you had to stand alone and defend your viewpoint, I'll gladly eat my words, so long as it's in the past and not something you manufacture next week just to counter me.  Perhaps the Atlas Fact Checkers will be hard at work at 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .

If I were bitter and vindictive, I'd have left here in a snit 5,000 posts ago.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I didn't want to quote it, since it's such a big post, but that Juanita Broaddrick stuff he was posting in so many threads reeks of hypocrisy. I'm assuming he posted that in threads about Trump's mistreatment of women, but in posting that he is implying that accusations are only true when they're against someone like Clinton, and that Trump's accusations possess no merit. Admittedly, a lot of Democrats perhaps were hypocrites and did her a disservice by not believing her and letting Bill Clinton escape his accusations. Speaking for myself, I was in diapers when that was all happening, so I can't say that I helped with hand-waving concerns about Clinton or anything. But that just makes Fuzzy look like a hypocrite too. Either every accuser with some credibility is believed, or none are. We all should know by now that picking and choosing, unless there is some evidence that proves they are lying, which in itself is fairly rare; that women's stories should be heard at the very least and not automatically assume that they are aiming to only damage someone or bring attention themselves.

What I was posting about was the fact that a whole slew of Clinton supporters who pretend that Bill's denial of Juanita Broaddrick and Kathleen Willey didn't happen.  Even worse, they wanted to just slough off Hillary's own treatment of Broaddrick and Willey and her whispering campaign labeling them as "nuts and sluts".  The hypocrisy of HILLARY Clinton and her supporters is epic.

"Either every accuser with some credibility is believed, or none are."  That's a statement that sounds good, but it's more about a narrative than about reality.  Jussie Smollett has "some credibility"; should we believe him?  Tawana Brawley was a young girl who said white police officers raped her, and she was backed by Al Sharpton and his attorneys; should she have been believed?  Should we still believe her today?  I would think not, but if we don't believe Tawana Brawley, do we not believe one of Cosby's accusers?  Well, no, but if we believe them, do we believe Catherine Crowell Webb, whose false account of a rape put an innocent man (Gary Dotson) in prison? 

If every accuser with some credibility is believe, what hope is there for the innocent and the wrongly accused?  What if that person being accused were you, and the accuser had "some credibility?

I don't think people have honestly thought through how dangerous it is to give a blank check of credibility to people making allegations of sexual assault against others irregardless of the facts.  There are REASONS to believe some allegations and be skeptical about others.  In a fair would, we would pick and choose on the basis of something other than which party the accused is identified with, but Atlas isn't a fair world, and when I'm here,  I know where I'm at.

[Fuzzy Bear]

These numbers are kind of interesting. I think this is probably a reasonable ceiling for someone whose beliefs piss off a lot of Atlas users but who is otherwise respectful and articulate.

If Fuzzy were more like an average Republican user in posting style, his FF numbers would probably crater.

Respectful?? It is the ultimate of disrespect (and well outside the mainstream, so nobody start) to believe our Jewish, Catholic, Mormon, and nonreligious posters will spend eternity burning in Hell.

Religious toleration is treating people you believe will burn in Hell with respect.

That's literally impossible, because it is inherently disrespectful to believe that people from other faiths are condemned to Hell.

Eh.

I would say at least it is inherently disrespectful, if not morally questionable, to believe that people from other faiths are condemned to Hell and then not do your best to proselytize to them. As annoying as some people find it, I have a lot more respect for those who have enough empathy to try to save me from their version of hell than those 'tolerant' enough to 'live and let die'.

You see, you say that now...

I strongly prefer to spend time with people who on occasion will tell me things I've already heard than with those who are indifferent to the possibility of my eternal suffering. The single theist I respect more than any other in the world is a Sunni guy I went to college with who I didn't spend too much time with, but nevertheless tried to save me from damnation nearly every time we did hang out. Sure, it got a bit old, but it was always respectful and interesting conversation, and it is miles better to spend time with someone who genuinely cares about you on some level than those who are perfectly content to let you fry for the sake of maintaining social propriety.

Karpatsky gets it.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Y'all be like "Hmm he's massively bigoted in many ways and frequently derails topics to push debunked or disingenuous talking points but none of his bigoted ideas are aimed at me so I like him"

Literally nobody said that. However, a lot of us think that, you know, people with conservative views (and I don’t say ultra-conservative because he’s not ultra-conservative) aren’t bigoted because their comments about immigration shows that they don’t hate people unlike them - instead, it simply demonstrates a (in my opinion unreasonable) fear of foreigners. That and a fear for safety is very common among people of his generation.

I believe people misunderstand my position on immigration.

I am open to all sorts of proposals regarding levels of immigration, resolving DACA, "The Wall" and other issues regarding Border Security, taking people in from countries laden with terrorism, legitimate and illegitimate asylum seekers, and other issues on the topic.  What I won't budge on is the principle of sovereignty and the rule of law.  The folks who violate our immigration laws do it knowingly and willfully, and the law should be enforced until it is repealed.  And it is AMERICA, and America, ALONE, that gets to decide who comes into our country.  This principle also means that we don't need to give people a reason for why we keep them out.  We get to decide, and we don't have to do this according to the World's standards.

It's easier to call me names than it is to honestly discuss the issue and discuss possible compromises.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Y'all be like "Hmm he's massively bigoted in many ways and frequently derails topics to push debunked or disingenuous talking points but none of his bigoted ideas are aimed at me so I like him"

Literally nobody said that. However, a lot of us think that, you know, people with conservative views (and I don’t say ultra-conservative because he’s not ultra-conservative) aren’t bigoted because their comments about immigration shows that they don’t hate people unlike them - instead, it simply demonstrates a (in my opinion unreasonable) fear of foreigners. That and a fear for safety is very common among people of his generation.

I believe people misunderstand my position on immigration.

I am open to all sorts of proposals regarding levels of immigration, resolving DACA, "The Wall" and other issues regarding Border Security, taking people in from countries laden with terrorism, legitimate and illegitimate asylum seekers, and other issues on the topic.  What I won't budge on is the principle of sovereignty and the rule of law.  The folks who violate our immigration laws do it knowingly and willfully, and the law should be enforced until it is repealed.  And it is AMERICA, and America, ALONE, that gets to decide who comes into our country.  This principle also means that we don't need to give people a reason for why we keep them out.  We get to decide, and we don't have to do this according to the World's standards.

It's easier to call me names than it is to honestly discuss the issue and discuss possible compromises.

You forgot to add that you are on the record as being in favor of reducing legal immigration as well.  Which puts you on the far-right fringe of mainstream society, but of course, aligns quite well with the path being forged by the current administration.

I have no apologies for that post.  My position as an individual is that I am for lower levels of legal immigration, as higher levels put stress on the structurally unemployed and on American low-skill workers.

That's a point where, if I were a politician, I would be willing to leave levels where they are, or even increase them slightly, as well as citizenship for the "Dreamers" in exchange for an end to chain migration, monies to upgrade detention centers and fund ICE to face the number of illegal aliens we have today, and that the Border Fence that has already been approved be completed post haste. There are lots of things that are negotiable.  What is not negotiable is the idea that the US is sovereign over who gets to come into our country. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

Y'all be like "Hmm he's massively bigoted in many ways and frequently derails topics to push debunked or disingenuous talking points but none of his bigoted ideas are aimed at me so I like him"

Literally nobody said that. However, a lot of us think that, you know, people with conservative views (and I don’t say ultra-conservative because he’s not ultra-conservative) aren’t bigoted because their comments about immigration shows that they don’t hate people unlike them - instead, it simply demonstrates a (in my opinion unreasonable) fear of foreigners. That and a fear for safety is very common among people of his generation.

I believe people misunderstand my position on immigration.

I am open to all sorts of proposals regarding levels of immigration, resolving DACA, "The Wall" and other issues regarding Border Security, taking people in from countries laden with terrorism, legitimate and illegitimate asylum seekers, and other issues on the topic.  What I won't budge on is the principle of sovereignty and the rule of law.  The folks who violate our immigration laws do it knowingly and willfully, and the law should be enforced until it is repealed.  And it is AMERICA, and America, ALONE, that gets to decide who comes into our country.  This principle also means that we don't need to give people a reason for why we keep them out.  We get to decide, and we don't have to do this according to the World's standards.

It's easier to call me names than it is to honestly discuss the issue and discuss possible compromises.

So basically your position is that of a mainstream Democrat. OK.

That's an interesting statement.

Mainstream Democratic VOTERS?  Some, maybe.

Mainstream Democratic POLITICIANS?  Thay have all moved to a position where they advocate open borders sub silentio. 

Don't kid yourself.  The POLS are focused on the BASE.

[Fuzzy Bear]

What is not negotiable is the idea that the US is sovereign over who gets to come into our country. 

And who is claiming otherwise?

No one, when asked.  A great many people, but in a sub silentio way.  That's my observation of how this issue is played out.

Disagreement with our immigration laws is one thing.  Insinuating that we don't have the right to enforce them is another thing and that DOES imply a loss of soverignty.  The people who advocate the abolition of ICE, or that advocate local law enforcement not cooperating with ICE in the way local law enforcement cooperates with other jurisdictions, including the Federal government.  How can a person advocate that a nation has sovereignty over ANYTHING when their primary advocacy is focused on dismantling the agency that enforces those laws and policies?  Sovereignty over immigration implies the right to enforce our immigration laws and secure our borders how WE see fit, even if the rest of the World hates us for it.  (Now I believe we ought to reconsider any policy that would truly bring on such worldwide enmity, but I also recognize that American public opinion is also being manipulated by all sorts of sources, domestic and foreign, who have no interest in the greater welfare of America and Americans.)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why do we need ICE? Or the DHS, for that matter? (No, "9/11" is not an acceptable answer.) Seems like a recipe for massive centralized bureaucratic waste, abuse, even fraud. It wasn't (and isn't) exactly an uncontroversial government department.

Did the enforcement of US immigration laws not exist before the creation of ICE?

It was INS before ICE. 

People who object to ICE are, in fact, objecting to the enforcement of our immigration laws.  That's my belief, as well.  The difference between ICE and INS and CONTROL and KAOS is nothing more than Alphabet Soup.  What's behind ICE is the mandate to enforce our present immigration laws.  There are many here that simply don't want that to happen.

[Fuzzy Bear]

One of the features I have noted about Atlas is the liberties people take with calling people names such as "Racist", "Sexist", "Xenophobe", "Homophobe", "Misogynist", and the like.

Now I take certain positions on issues that people may disagree with.  I'm not a racist, but I don't believe in repirations, and I certainly don't believe in all of (to simplify things), the BLM agenda.  (I do agree with a portion of it, but I find their tactics less than savory.)  I'm not a Xenophobe, but I do believe that America is sovereign in controlling it's borders, and I believe we have the right to deny anyone entry into the US for any reason.  I'm not a homophobe, but I AM a Christian, and I do believe (A) that Christian institutions have a right to not have to hire persons whose beliefs and lifestyles do not reflect Scripture, and (B) while I am not looking to repeal Obergefell, I'm not OK with having my arm twisted to say that GOD is OK with SSM, because Scripture does not say that.  I'm not a Misogynist, but I believe that the #MeToo movement, while making legitimate claims and representing legitimately aggrieved people, have launched a movement that wishes to assign guilt to people based on mere allegations, and I do have skepticism toward allegations that are brought up decades later, with no real evidence to suggest that they have merit.  One is not in those negative categories simply because of their opinions on a few select issues.  But that's not how lots of people play here, and (on some topics), they have ganged up on me calling me names that, if they called me in real life, I'd sue them and win, because they are slanderous and libelous.

I view people doing this to me as committing slander and libel.  Nothing happens to them; their posts aren't even moderated.  (I was told to report posts, and I have, and I fail to see any effect.)  I'm not going to let people slander or libel me, though.  I will push back on that.  Please tell me why I should not.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I view people doing this to me as committing slander and libel.  Nothing happens to them; their posts aren't even moderated.  (I was told to report posts, and I have, and I fail to see any effect.)  I'm not going to let people slander or libel me, though.  I will push back on that.  Please tell me why I should not.

Cut the bullsh**t Fuzzy. You went and cried to PIT and succesfully got 2 of my posts deleted ... because I said that you don't believe Jews and other non-Christians can go to Heaven. That's neither slander nor libel, because you've said over and over that you do believe that. (Or you could correct me right now if you don't.)

Quit playing the persecuted victim. There are tangible examples of moderators who DO stretch the TOS to do you what you want them to do.

If that happened, good.  You deserved it.  Stay within the lines.  If mods have started to infract clear slander, good.  Better late than never.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I view people doing this to me as committing slander and libel.  Nothing happens to them; their posts aren't even moderated.  (I was told to report posts, and I have, and I fail to see any effect.)  I'm not going to let people slander or libel me, though.  I will push back on that.  Please tell me why I should not.

Cut the bullsh**t Fuzzy. You went and cried to PIT and succesfully got 2 of my posts deleted ... because I said that you don't believe Jews and other non-Christians can go to Heaven. That's neither slander nor libel, because you've said over and over that you do believe that. (Or you could correct me right now if you don't.)

Quit playing the persecuted victim. There are tangible examples of moderators who DO stretch the TOS to do you what you want them to do.

Another example of what I was talking about earlier, of your inability to restrain yourself from attacks on Fuzzy Bear and other posters of his kind.

Haven't you left the forum because we were too mean to you?

How very mean. You don't deserve to be here and the Devil is going to get you.

Then do your job and delete Harry's post for a personal attack.  I've had posts less harsh than that be deleted. 

[Fuzzy Bear]

I view people doing this to me as committing slander and libel.  Nothing happens to them; their posts aren't even moderated.  (I was told to report posts, and I have, and I fail to see any effect.)  I'm not going to let people slander or libel me, though.  I will push back on that.  Please tell me why I should not.

Cut the bullsh**t Fuzzy. You went and cried to PIT and succesfully got 2 of my posts deleted ... because I said that you don't believe Jews and other non-Christians can go to Heaven. That's neither slander nor libel, because you've said over and over that you do believe that. (Or you could correct me right now if you don't.)

Quit playing the persecuted victim. There are tangible examples of moderators who DO stretch the TOS to do you what you want them to do.

Another example of what I was talking about earlier, of your inability to restrain yourself from attacks on Fuzzy Bear and other posters of his kind.

Haven't you left the forum because we were too mean to you?

How very mean. You don't deserve to be here and the Devil is going to get you.

Then do your job and delete Harry's post for a personal attack.  I've had posts less harsh than that be deleted. 

You think the whole edifice of the moderating team should be marshaled to act purely on your personal grievances. It’s absolutely nuts to watch.

So which is it?

I've been trolled, personally attacked, and slandered/libeled by ProudModerate2 and a few others.  I have had benign posts deleted, while "Snitches get stitches!" stands.  

I have been told by various mods that the reason nothing is done about people that have defamed me is that I didn't report posts.  So I report posts, and a post which, on its face, labels me a "snitch" and indicates that "getting stitches" is in my future.  Now I'm sure the poster has no means by which to make that happen, but do we not have a policy to not threaten harm to folks, even in jest?

[Fuzzy Bear]

I view people doing this to me as committing slander and libel.  Nothing happens to them; their posts aren't even moderated.  (I was told to report posts, and I have, and I fail to see any effect.)  I'm not going to let people slander or libel me, though.  I will push back on that.  Please tell me why I should not.

Cut the bullsh**t Fuzzy. You went and cried to PIT and succesfully got 2 of my posts deleted ... because I said that you don't believe Jews and other non-Christians can go to Heaven. That's neither slander nor libel, because you've said over and over that you do believe that. (Or you could correct me right now if you don't.)

Quit playing the persecuted victim. There are tangible examples of moderators who DO stretch the TOS to do you what you want them to do.

Another example of what I was talking about earlier, of your inability to restrain yourself from attacks on Fuzzy Bear and other posters of his kind.

Oh look who came crawling back

Yes, I'm back. And I will not let users such as yourself get to me this time.

"such as myself" I never once attacked you on this site.

You just did so just now. As I said, I shall not flinch this time.

That wasn't supposed to be an attack I'm sorry you tool it that way

TSA is a good dude; we just have irreconcilable differences on Middle East issues and the virtues of Tlaib and Omar.  There aren't too many people I think I've been unfair to, but I may have been to him in a recent exchange.

Harry, on the other hand, speaks for himself.  To respond to someone as "Look who came crawling back!" does sort of speak for itself does it not?

[Fuzzy Bear]

Amazing how polarizing Fuzzy is, and also how high turnout this poll is. I mean, even if it was created months ago, the fact that it's now 10 pages long and still going is a testament to the energy Fuzzy creates. Most users don't even get half as many responses.

Not that it is necessarily a good thing, though... Opinion Of polls that get many responses and many pages of discussion tend to be about controversial users. I'm not sure if we've had any other similar situations where the user was simply well-liked with no larger dispute.

Well, I ain't gonna go back and do the math, but I'd guess about 5 of those 10 pages are Fuzzy himself.  Not that that isn't his prerogative or predisposition or both.

I've got 15-16 posts out of 208 in this thread, many of which to respond to personal attacks.

As to why I seem to generate so much energy:

I usually find his posts long-winded and unpersuasive, but for reasons that I've never understood he also tends to expose some serious ideological blind spots in those who disagree with him most vehemently.

I've seen it in discussions of everything from abortion, to immigration, to religious freedom. There is value in that, especially when he's often the only person voicing opinions that are common elsewhere.