Tattle-tale threads are bullshit
Often, when I get into an argument with an Israeli, or Republican, or gay, or whatever... I notice that the negative votes keep rolling in strong on posts that are several levels deep in "collapsed post" territory.
That's the sign that you've been targeted by a tattle-tale thread in a special interest subreddit.
Go ahead and click through the submissions of the first guy or two that engaged you in discussion, and lo', you'll find that they've made a post in their niche reddit saying something like "help me show this guy how it is".
It's absolutely pathetic that these people can't allow discussion to take place that displeases them. They have to call in their like-minded goons to squash the dissent and make it look like the rest of reddit supports their position. Be a man and argue your position. Dispute your opponents position. But don't go whining to mommy because you can't formulate a coherent argument or bother to actually read and process a post.
And seriously, going through several pages and downvoting all the user's comments makes you even more pathetic. It sounds to me like some people can't handle the truth and must act like children.
Edit:
Just wait until one of those tattle tale posters finds this thread. It'll go straight to 0.
Posted Dec 18, 2009, 9:44 PM UTC · edited
You're right: people shouldn't go get other like minded people to shout you down. However, I just read your comments from the Worst of 2009 post and you call homosexuality "a benign mental disorder." Why are you upset that other people want to silence you for calling them disordered (or, at the very least, abnormal)? You used a bunch of bigoted rhetoric, whether you are bigoted or not. The only natural response from people within that community is to shout you down. Sorry, dude, that's how life be.
Hell, depending on the context that makes a lot of sense. I don't find it bigoted at all. What I do find bigoted is the "wanting to silence" part. That sounds awful.
I'm not going to get drawn up into the whole homosexuality argument. I just wanted to say that there seem to be certain types of bigotry that are more acceptable on reddit than others, and if you want to try to justify this shitty behavior based on bigotry, then we at least need to be fair about it.
I've seen some pretty misogynistic stuff written on occasion that was not deep-sixed by hundreds of angry redditors. And bashing Americans is not only perfectly acceptable, it's almost a prerequisite to posting on reddit (but hey, it's okay because we're all just morbidly obese, conservative, book-burning Jayzus-loving fascists). That reminds me, although I don't tend to be conservative, I have met some very bright conservatives, and again labeling anyone with conservative views as idiotic or inferior is another form of bigotry that is more acceptable on reddit.
Sure, you might point out that this isn't serious, that trashing women, Americans, etc, is just meant in light-hearted jest so there's no need to get my buddies together to downvote it to hell, but if I were to start cracking a bunch of racist jokes and "fag" jokes, don't try and tell me you'd let me use the same lame justification.
There's a difference between "Four gay guys walk into a gay bar and they find a problem. There's only one stool left. One guy says 'Lets flip for it' But another says 'No, Lets flip it over'" and claiming gay people are abnormal. Just like I'm sure no one would stand idly by while someone claimed that women evolved to stay at home and take care of children because that's all they're good at.
There's a difference between debating certain topics and saying things that sound bigoted. I'm pretty sure that if wrongprocessor had said something like, "Republicans are upset that they are a dying party, but isn't it the party's policies that have killed it?" (Or some argumentative question about gay people. I'm just trying to vary the themes here.) He wouldn't get shouted down.
By the way, that joke is only mildly funny. I want better gay jokes. It's a crime there aren't any.
My problem isn't so much with the really obvious jokes like the one you just gave. What I meant when I referred to joking is the way it could be used to rationalize one's actions, because after all you can write damn near any kind of garbage and then when called on it just say, "oh I was just goofing around, don't be so serious."
I think the misogyny stuff is probably usually just jokes. But the anti-religious, anti-conservative, anti-American stuff on here can get pretty fierce. So, yeah, back to your original comment -- when people pigeonhole me based on their narrow-minded delusion that I'm an obese, low-IQ, gun-toting hick because of where I was born, I expect you will be leading the effort to downvote them into oblivion.
Hells yes I will. I'm personally anti-anti-people. I understand that reddit is very fiercely "progressive," and they assume that means atheist, national self-deprecation, and exceptionally liberal. They're really wrong. Progressive is letting other people be who they be and giving a helping hand despite the fact that that person may not agree with your opinions.
Hell, I like wrongprocessor despite the fact that he has determined that my sexual orientation is a disorder. I don't agree with him, but we're entitled to our own opinions and as long as he still sees me as an equal and a human being on equal footing, he's top-notch in my book.
What reddit should realize and will eventually is that both sides of the yard are freakishly similar and those who sit on the fence can see it all. (Though it does get uncomfortable up here. I really wish they hadn't opted for the picket style. It hurts.)
I think he thinks that post was downvoted because it was in LGBT. I'm haven't seen it in there at all as of yet and I'm assuming he may be too scared to go and look for himself.
It's not rhetoric and shouldn't even be innately offensive to suggest that a homosexual mind is different, in perhaps only that one way, from the standard normal mind. That deviation is a disorder because it's not normal and it's contrary to the obvious goals of evolution. It's benign because it doesn't really hurt anything.
My opponents in that argument were extremists and attempted to debate the idea that heterosexuality is the default state for creatures that reproduce sexually.
You really have no idea what you are talking about.
Homosexuality is not contrary to evolution; the siblings of homosexuals get more help, so their genes get a push along indirectly.
As you don't even know the science, it is clear that your attitude is based upon either ignorance or bigotry,
Lot's of things are not normal but still not disorders. Would you say that all natural blondes have a disorder? or all south paws? These two traits occur at about the same rate as homosexuality.
Frankly, if i were gay, i would be insulted by what you said.
so are you honestly suggesting that gay people are more likely to reproduce then straight people?
no, but under certain circumstances their genes(via siblings or close relatives) may be more likely to continue on.
Evolution isn't about survival of individuals, its about survival of genes. In the vast majority of species, the two are directly linked, but not all the time.
I shouldn't even waste time replying to you, but fine. Is being blonde a genetic disadvantage? No. Is being left handed a genetic disadvantage? No.
Then you're dumb and reactionary. The default state for creatures that reproduce sexually is heterosexuality. Further, while homosexual activity takes places in other animals, exclusively homosexual animals do not exist.
Go do some fucking research. I'll even make it easier for you: in the last couple of months New Scientist did a large article on this specifically.
I just looked up reactionary (I assumed it would mean that you are overreacting or something similar; you too, I assume?) and it means "opposing political or social liberalization or reform." So, in terms of the actual definition of the word, you sir are being reactionary.
I probably would have pointed that out whether I was straight or gay, agreed with you or disagreed with you. Just saying is all.
this is one reason you get downvotes. You don't need to insult people. I stated a claim, if you have a different opinion, fine. You only make yourself look like a troll by using ad hominems.
Also calling someone reactionary right off the bat is reactionary.
Actually, it is, depending on where you live. That's why blonde people by and large only come from certain areas of the world.
Furthermore you are assuming that it is a genetic disadvantage to have homosexuals in a species. Think of two brothers. Their dna is nearly identical. Only one of them has to reproduce for the majority of their genes to be passed on. If they are hetero sexual, then conflict between them is much more likely. Conflict could result in neither reproducing. If one is homosexual, conflict is less likely. The odds of at least one of them creating an offspring is increased. It's group selection.
My belief is that the default state for many creatures that reproduce sexually is bisexuality, especially in the higher primates. Do you have evidence that contradicts this? (I'm not certain I can support it, but it is my impression from what I've seen and read of primates, and from my observations of people.)
How did "exclusively homosexual" animals even enter this conversation???
I fail to see how being gay is a "genetic disadvantage." In and of itself its harmless.
Everyone forgets this: being gay does not make you sterile. We're still totally capable of reproducing, and do very often. The equipment still works. There's always technology and if you really want a kid that bad, the old-fashioned way still works fine.
Excuse me, straight male who has had bi experiences here. Married with kid.
And you are full of fertilizer, pal. Go read some current releases on the pathologies of the brain. You'll save us all the trouble of wasting our time trying to convince you that your arguments make crops grow, but nothing else.
Yeah yeah, I'm full of shit, but you can't point out what I said that's false and then point to your supposed evidence to prove it.
You'd rather say "Oh, there's evidence, go find some" and act like you're contributing to the discussion.
Of course people like you will go and pick three different links that seem to support their position from their title, then paste them in without having read them at all and expect me to debunk it.
My post comes from self evident facts. Your post is anecdotal at best.
No, you're wrong. That's what I said. Homosexuality is not considered by medical science to be a disorder.
Now, what were you babbling about?
Oh ho ho ho. 9/10.
You seem very invested in topics you know nothing about.