Board 8 > The new moderation system is a failure

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mr Lasastryke posted...

MariaTaylor posted...

and then as soon as someone posts something you don't like it's always SOURCE??? SOURCE???

suddenly you become harvard intellectuals.

itt you have to be a harvard intellectual to be asking for a source about an aspect of a news story that nobody is reporting on

itt you have to be a dumbass to think I was legitimately suggesting anyone who asks for a source is a harvard intellectual
---

yeah i know i'm unbelievably dumb you've only stated this 500000 times
---

Corrik7 posted...

He gave you the source. The guy's Twitter.

not when he first posted about it. hence people asking for a source (which is deserving of relentless mockery, according to lisel).
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

TomNook posted...

Corrik7 posted...

Which leads me to believe they were just trying to see where he said so they could label him.

not sure why you would be so cynical about our motives. i myself was genuinely curious where you had found the information as (as i said in the topic) even fucking infowars wasn't saying he was an antifa supporter at the time. thought that if there was word about this, they'd be among the first to report it.

I posted the twitter in my 2nd post of the topic when people asked me for the source. I didn't even realize until later in the topic that that somehow wasn't good enough, and they wanted some news station with a political lean that was posting the same link I posted. By that point I was being attacked, so I simply refused because of the happenings; it wasn't me being cynical from the start.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

hence people asking for a source (which is deserving of relentless mockery, according to lisel).

I am mocking you for a clear pattern of behavior of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty over the course of YEARS. the fact that you're trying to make it sound like I'm attacking you just for "asking for a source" really demonstrates the heights of this behavior.
---

TomNook posted...

I posted the twitter in my 2nd post of the topic when people asked me for the source. I didn't even realize until later in the topic that that somehow wasn't good enough, and they wanted some news station with a political lean that was posting the same link I posted.

from what i understand the issue was that at the time, people didn't know that that twitter account belonged to the dayton shooter so they were asking how you knew, and you refused to answer this question. didn't seem like an unreasonable question either. anyone can link to some random dude's twitter and say "HEY GUYS THIS IS THE SHOOTER."

i guess there were pictures but (just going by memory) those weren't so clear that it was 100% undeniable that the owner of the twitter was indeed the shooter.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

I am mocking you for a clear pattern of behavior of cowardice and intellectual dishonesty over the course of YEARS. the fact that you're trying to make it sound like I'm attacking you just for "asking for a source" really demonstrates the heights of this behavior.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo8JKkvbXkU" data-time="
---

sure I can. I know it's true. hell, you know it's true. plenty of people reading this topic know it's true. we all know each other very well. the fact that you're trying to deflect by doing the exact thing that started this conversation pretty much tells the entire story. just because you found a 'funny' youtube video to start crying "SOURCE??? SOURCE???" doesn't somehow refute what I've said.

you were given a literal primary source -- the shooter's own twitter. you didn't want to believe it, so instead of accepting the information as true, you started going after the person who shared it by questioning where they got the information from. but it doesn't matter where he got the info from. it would still be true. and you're a giant hypocrite, because you accept unverified twitter posts as evidence ALL THE TIME when it's something you want to believe.

just admit it. just one time, ever, admit what you are and what you've done. I might actually respect you even a little bit. but see, I know you won't. that's why I disrespect you all the time -- because I have literally no respect for you.
---

I feel like there was unreasonableness on both sides there.

Tom: the shooter was an Antifa supporter btw
people: huh, I haven't heard that anywhere. what's your source? (reasonable)
Tom: his twitter *posts twitter*
SEP: (attack mode) did you get this from The_Donald?? you did, didn't you?? (unreasonable)
people: gasp! so, how did you find out his twitter account?
Tom: *refuses to give source* (unreasonable)

so yeah SEP went on the attack first, but there was literally no reason to withhold the source when everyone was asking about it, especially since it was (apparently) entirely innocuous.
---

Tom also looks like a bit of a goofball in that topic, and this topic, but I haven't been putting up with his behavior for years. give it some time and I'm sure I'll have some remarks for him as well!
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

TomNook posted...

I posted the twitter in my 2nd post of the topic when people asked me for the source. I didn't even realize until later in the topic that that somehow wasn't good enough, and they wanted some news station with a political lean that was posting the same link I posted.

from what i understand the issue was that at the time, people didn't know that that twitter account belonged to the dayton shooter so they were asking how you knew, and you refused to answer this question. didn't seem like an unreasonable question either. anyone can link to some random dude's twitter and say "HEY GUYS THIS IS THE SHOOTER."

i guess there were pictures but (just going by memory) those weren't so clear that it was 100% undeniable that the owner of the twitter was indeed the shooter.

Pretty sure he pointed out how it was the shooter. Markings, Dayton references, etc.
---

Drakeryn posted...

I feel like there was unreasonableness on both sides there.

Tom: the shooter was an Antifa supporter btw
people: huh, I haven't heard that anywhere. what's your source? (reasonable)
Tom: his twitter *posts twitter*
SEP: (attack mode) did you get this from The_Donald?? you did, didn't you?? (unreasonable)
people: gasp! so, how did you find out his twitter account?
Tom: *refuses to give source* (unreasonable)

so yeah SEP went on the attack first, but there was literally no reason to withhold the source when everyone was asking about it, especially since it was (apparently) entirely innocuous.

I was being stubborn I admit of course, but that was after how things escalated. But the pictures were very obviously him. There were multiple ones with his face visible, as well as his tattoo. It also mentioned Dayton. Asking for a source to point out literally all the same stuff that was clearly visible came off as brainless, and after the attacks, I didn't want to play ball into some pointless mindgame. After the attacks, I just wanted people to realize how silly it was to ask for a website/tv show/whatever that said everything that they could see for themselves.

MariaTaylor posted...

Tom also looks like a bit of a goofball in that topic, and this topic, but I haven't been putting up with his behavior for years. give it some time and I'm sure I'll have some remarks for him as well!

I know, before I left, I pointed out how bad everyone ended up looking, myself included. Getting baited into a dumb conversation isn't a good look for anyone. And I'm doing it again here.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

you were given a literal primary source -- the shooter's own twitter. you didn't want to believe it,

i didn't "not want to believe it" - why wouldn't i want to? like i said before, there's plenty of people on the left who commit mass shootings and terrorist attacks, so the dayton shooter being a leftist wasn't some shocking news that shattered my worldview about the left and the right or anything. i withheld judgment on the veracity of the claim that this was the shooter's twitter.

is your issue that i didn't immediately believe tomnook? if that's the case, i'll say this: if i made a claim about a news story that no well known source is reporting without any kind of source, surely you wouldn't immediately accept it as truth either. because you have absolutely no respect for me, as you just said. is it really so wrong that i was a little bit skeptical about tomnook's claim that the twitter account indeed belonged to the dayton shooter?

and you're a giant hypocrite, because you accept unverified twitter posts as evidence ALL THE TIME when it's something you want to believe.

yes, i know that this is what your accusation is because you said this before in this topic. but you're still providing 0% evidence. do i need to post that youtube video again?

i will add that if your argument is that i don't question a reuters tweet about trump not doing well in the polls (even though they may be incorrect), it goes back to the thing i was talking about above - i think reuters has more credibility than some dude on gamefaqs. if in your eyes this makes me a "giant hypocrite," you do you, but i'd say that's pretty ridiculous.

if your argument is that if twitter account ihatetrump12345 (with 6 followers) is saying "HAY GUYS TRUMP IS AT 0% IN THE POLLS" and i accept this tweet as evidence without questioning it whatsoever, i would love to see some fucking evidence of me ever doing this.
---

"If it says what I want it to say, it must be true. If not, source of the source of the source please."
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

is your issue that i didn't immediately believe tomnook? if that's the case, i'll say this: if i made a claim about a news story that no well known source is reporting without any kind of source, surely you wouldn't immediately accept it as truth either. because you have absolutely no respect for me, as you just said. is it really so wrong that i was a little bit skeptical about tomnook's claim that the twitter account indeed belonged to the dayton shooter?

you're being so dishonest now though because the twitter verifiably did belong to the shooter. you are so downplaying the behavior of the people in that topic by innocuously suggesting that all you did was "not believe him immediately."

when a group of hyena all circle around someone and start barking at him, you don't get to later walk it back and be like "I didn't bite anyone!"

here's a better answer to your question: even though I have no respect for you, if you posted a verified PRIMARY SOURCE of information, yes, I would consider the information to be valid. how you found the primary source and who you are is irrelevant. truth is truth.

Mr Lasastryke posted...

yes, i know that this is what your accusation is because you said this before in this topic. but you're still providing 0% evidence. do i need to post that youtube video again?

you can post whatever you want. do you honestly believe I'm gonna go back through YEARS of archived topics looking for specific instances of you doing something that we all know happens? just so that in the end you respond to my sourced post with a 5 second youtube clip and a refusal to accept reality?

every single time I've gone through the effort of posting sourced information on the board, the receiving party always throws a fit and changes the subject. we've had THIS exact same conversation multiple times. do you think something has changed between now and the last time?

you can think what you want about it, you can say what you want about it. you can cry all day about me not posting sources. it doesn't matter to me. you lost my respect. you've done nothing to earn it back. if I'm having a conversation with my friend(s) about something and I want to show them, sure, I'll go ahead and dig up sources, and we'll have an actual conversation about it. thing is, you're not my friend, and you have shown no desire to have an actual conversation.

while typing this btw I got marked again.

because this is all you people can do -- try to censor those who call you out for what you are.
---

Corrik7 posted...

"If it says what I want it to say, it must be true. If not, source of the source of the source please."

oh wow, you can also post a totally unsubstantiated character assassination. good job.
---

MariaTaylor posted...

you are so downplaying the behavior of the people in that topic by innocuously suggesting that all you did was "not believe him immediately."

i didn't say that was all we did. i accused him of trolling, for instance (because he ignored requests for the source of the dayton shooter's twitter after being asked five billion times).

here's a better answer to your question: even though I have no respect for you, if you posted a verified PRIMARY SOURCE of information, yes, I would consider the information to be valid. how you found the primary source and who you are is irrelevant. truth is truth.

what if it was unconfirmed that it was a primary source?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

what if it was unconfirmed that it was a primary source?

I would look into it myself and see what I could find. that's what I usually do. did you see me posting in that topic? no? but I was reading it. and I went to check on the information myself. much more productive than joining a group of people who are all badgering one person asking a question that has already been asked.
---

TomNook posted...

HanOfTheNekos posted...

TomNook posted...

As someone who is super neutral,

lol

I recently found out that people were confusing me for another user, so this is probably the same situation for you.

oh!

Well.

Damn.

If Red's confirming, then sorry!

Shit, that makes a LOT more sense for how I've felt the past couple of years.
---