Telika: I have no idea what game you are playing - or more precisely why you still keep playing it here. I've been increasingly skimming through your posts because they are way too stupid, dishonest and superficial. They are an empty exercise in self-justification, a circular rationalisation, and you know it perfectly. There is no reflexion of any other type than "through what rhetoric can I make my stance sound legitimate".
It's called a discussion and it goes like this: You bring your arguments, I bring my arguments, and so on. Needs at least two people of whom you're presently one (but presently unaware of the fact).
Insults & accusations without arguments naturally don't count and can be dismissed as invalid. If you could somehow make them funny they'd have at least some entertainment value but argument is still required for it to stick and warrant the effort of proper defense. I didn't invent those unwritten rules but that's how it commonly goes.
Regarding circular
reasoning: In your
first post, you yourself initiate circular reasoning by beginning with the conclusion that Tintin in The Congo is racist, without first bringing forth arguments.
Telika: Now, you're really in search for some validation, or some attention, and you obviously take a huge pleasure in this pseudo-intellectual exercise.
As explained above, you need some form of argument to go with an accusation, otherwise it's like serving a glass of water without water inside.
Telika: I understand it's highly glorified in your political circles, but I have no interest in playing "flat earth society" with you. That is not a hobby of mine.
Maybe not a hobby but you sure do it with reliable frequency and despite appearing to not enjoy it, you seem unable to resist. I'm assuming that no one has kidnapped you and is forcing you to post?
There is compelling evidence for the fact that the Earth is not flat but there is no decisive evidence for your claim that Tintin in The Congo is racist. I've addressed all the pages and panels you mentioned. Your claims are rehashing the politically correct status quo which is a position of imagined moral higher ground that doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.
It's a common smear tactic to draw an unwarranted racist card on something or someone while hoping that it - without the use of any actual arguments - will either trigger enough liberal guilt in the accused or have some sort of "Meidung" (shunning) effect such as when an Amish fellow goes to town to see a movie and then gets shunned from his community for this "terrible crime". In essence, you're hoping for self-censorship which is a staple of any unfree society (DDR etc).
You even mentioned in one of your posts that you secretly wished that some of kingbradley's post were censored.
You might not like what some members say but to have such an attitude is a slippery slope and censorship is generally seen as incredibly nasty around here so if you're hoping for some kind of shunning effect, be careful that it doesn't ultimately fall back on you.
The danger of resorting to such lazy tactics is that you'll lose your argumentative edge and then ultimately get frustrated when it doesn't work and resort to simple insults, as seen above and in the other thread where you didn't even have the courtesy to make the insults face to face but behind my back (several times in a row).
So at least you're now insulting me directly and not behind my back, not sure if it's a result of your increased frustration or if it's an actual improvement in terms of honest conduct, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the latter.
Telika: Yes, questions of racism and xenophobia in society are interesting, as are all questions on collective cultural representations. Even UDC/SVP worldviews are worth being studied (and there's quite some
litterature on the socilogy of your party, and other european extreme-right formations, already).
According to your logic, the social democrats (SP/PS party) are extreme leftists, left of which are only Stalin & Co.
Not being concise isn't helping any discussion. Obviously, calling a party more extreme than it really is in reality is an attempt at defamation because no likes extremists. As I mentioned right above, simply repeating your mantras doesn't cont as argument. Even if you repeat it a 100 times it does not change reality, it only solidifies your perception. As with all cheap tactics, it might work for a while and is doomed to ultimately fail. Case in point: The boy who cried wolf.
PS: litter(ature) belongs in the trash, sorry for capitalizing on your typo but it's too fitting :)
Telika: And societal dilemmas are also highly interesting to analyse, weight, and trying to (impossibly) "solve" in the least damaging manner (for all the people at stake). BUT, not with imbeciles. NOT with people who are still at the "durr, thar iz not racimsm in tintin at congo" level. NOT with militants who are still at the "hey UDC/SVP is just a regular moderate center-right party, to the right of which sands just the socialist party". NOT with people for who pretend to not grasp the notion of islamophobia. NOT at the poor wysiwyg level of social awareness of ultraconservatives for whom "racism" being a "bad word", can never be applied to their side, and therefore has to be emptied of absolutely any meaning short of KKK-lynches.
Stonk sauerkraut, jawohl! I'd give you some points for pathos if I gave points for that but pathos in rhetorics is too often a tool for influencing the attitude of the crowd without proper argument and while it (unfortunately) often works, you might end of dying alone in a bunker so I wouldn't place all too much importance on it. Didn't you say something about seeking validation and attention above? In this part of your post, you throw around all the staple keywords: "racism, militants, islamophobia, ultraconservatives, KKK" -> all words that you quite loudly and frequently use to validate yourself by "being against it". Do you do anything against it? You'd deserve validation for actions, not for just complaining (in all the inconsequential places)
For example: You took issue to the thread about that little game in which gay people are a target for murder. In the meantime, Islamists are throwing
real-life gay people from rooftops and hang them from cranes, right now as we speak.
If you want to do more than parade around your "social awareness" and if you want to be a real advocate for human rights then kindly invest your energy where it counts. Instead, you're looking for quick validation by bagging on people like kingbradley who I'm quite certain isn't throwing anyone off rooftops or anything remotely like that. Or hating on Hergé who can't defend himself because he's already dead. I suspect you're really just a bully who likes it when people don't talk back and when they do (like that impertinent imbecile awalterj!) then you become frustrated because you suddenly get asked to have arguments, not just mantras.
Telika: Your game is just a waste of time, that can be spent on actual work, on honest investigations, or on more enjoyable gaming.
I fully agree. Except that this isn't my "game" but
ours. Don't be so socially unaware...
As I mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I consider all my gaming and forum activity by definition a waste of time so whether I'm arguing with someone or posting in "what's your favorite game" thread number 235436564, I'm fully accepting the circumstance that I'm willfully wasting time. The keyword is fun, here I agree with you. This isn't really fun, not because we are arguing but because you're not presenting me with proper arguments, resorting to simple insults instead, not much to work with.
If you want to stop arguing, just say the magic word. And don't forget, it takes two. No one is forcing you to reply, so if you're here against your own better judgement then it's a simple case of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy -> part 2 of post follows, as usual. You know the drill :)