Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 46 of 46
Like Tree27Likes

Thread: Kidnap Of Trump-Supporter Live On Social Media

  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    2,126
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Of the 1677 posts you have presented over three years, 1600 were probably ad hominems.

    1300 or so Likes received were mostly your minions kissing your butt in support of your ad hominems.

    The fact that you are anything but contrite is a stunning illustration of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

    See what I mean....? You're proving my previous point, ya know that right?.....You obviously don't want to get along....You want to RULE this place...and you've obviously got me confused with someone who cares what you think....(What happened to you, Man? Somebody hurt you bad, didn't they?)

    You know, its a strange thing with fanatics.....They're just always Right , must be kinda nice, no?....

    Oh Well SophicDrippins, I sincerely hope you have a good life.....OK? ...and we could have been friends.....

    Xin Loi.....
    Last edited by droneBEE; 01-14-2017 at 05:47 AM.

  2. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    I mistakenly figured it wouldn't need it explained.
    No, that's not what the problem is; it's that you don't get the background behind the "safe space" idea & you're trying to repurpose it to serve your personal agenda here on this forum. In order for it to work you have to con folks on this forum to accept your assertion. I've pulled back the curtain and exposed this, so now it's not going to work for you, anymore. By continuing to press on with your exposed & foiled con job, all you're doing is exhibiting the traits of insanity - trying the same thing over & over, and expecting a different result.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    "I don't see it as a person with a gun defending his lawn, but someone crying about their feelings being hurt" means I disagree, not that I don't understand.
    That doesn't matter, unless you can give a good reason for disagreeing - which I don't think you've succeeded in providing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    I'm not the one threatening to leave because they can't control the content. Kidnap Of Trump-Supporter Live On Social Media
    I'm not the one threatening appeal to mods because they can't control content. A quick guide to ignore molyneux trolls
    I'm not the one desiring to have speech banned because it's offensive. Should overt racist speech be free under a RBE?
    I'm not the one starting threads whining about trolls.
    I'm not the one launching ad hominems in lieu of superior argument.

    So nope, it doesn't express me.
    Maybe it just shows that you're not be the only one; how is it mutually exclusive, as you're implying?

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Well that strawman forced Hal to leave in protest and forces you, drone, ernest, and everyone but Phil to engage in ad hominems, et al. One heck of a strawman!
    If I as an individual have engaged in an ad hominem, some other fallacy or attack, or stated something you disagree with or take exception with, tell me specifically what I wrote, what's wrong with it, etc. I'm not interested in this vague broad stroke allegation stuff. If I did engage in any ad homs, I'll answer for them myself; where did I engage in any ad homs?

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Let me know what part of this you do not understand:

    Tzm forum rules

    Respectful communication is the core requirement in this Forum.

    To disagree with each other and/or certain aspects of TZM in general, supported with respectfully presented arguments is welcome.

    This is not to discourage skepticism and questioning - that is invited and needed. Rather, it is to make sure Users are able to communicate in a safe, respectful and comfortable manner with others.

    If you are unable to control yourself from calling people "idiots" or the like, this forum is not for you.
    I'm not going to respond to your loaded question; you're engaging in spin by cherry picking the rules & using a red herring. Here are the parts of the rules you're not taking into account:

    Forum Purpose:
    To facilitate development of TZM's Projects & General Educational Work.

    Overview:
    The Zeitgeist Movement's Global Forum is not an "Open-Forum" for anyone to come and participate without prior material understanding or a supportive intent. The purpose of this Forum is to facilitate a positive, productive, unified medium for supporters of TZM to interact and progress ideas and projects in a supportive and safe community environment. It is a meeting place for those who support TZM and are active in our Educational Projects, such as Chapters, Projects and Teams. This is why the Forum's layout actually mirrors our Project/Team/Chapter Structure directly. More: TZM - FAQ

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    I haven't been prevented. There are those who would like to see me being prevented.
    Yeah & that includes me, for at least some of your content (i.e., the kind of content that doesn't belong on this forum).

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Yup, there is a copy of some parts of it and it's easy to see why it was taken down.
    I don't know what you're referring to because I don't know what parts of it you've seen, so you'll have to elaborate on this. There was all kinds of stuff happening on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Legally, for now, but if TZM is accessible to public view, then it cannot ethically censor its content. It may ethically censor its content if its content is not plastered all over the internet for everyone to see.
    You're trying to change the goal post & bringing a different claim or argument, now. I wasn't talking about what's ethical; I was talking about what's legal, property rights, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    I could set up my own blog and post whatever I want, yes. I could not set up my own forum and ban people who I disagree with.
    If it's your forum then yes you can.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    It wouldn't be ethical.
    Why wouldn't it be ethical? What are the consequences for something being ethical or not ethical supposed to be, and why?

    If someone said I shouldn't eat meat because it would be unethical, it doesn't really tell me anything so it doesn't mean anything to me. If I'm hungry I'm simply going to ignore this claim that it's unethical and proceed with eating meat.

    If someone said I shouldn't ban someone from my forum because it would be unethical, it doesn't really tell me anything so it doesn't mean anything to me. If I'm dissatisfied with someone on my forum I'm simply going to ignore this claim that it's unethical and proceed with banning them.

    Give me more to have a reason for why something being ethical or not being ethical should matter to me beyond the mere claim that something is unethical; otherwise it's all just meaningless & pointless.

    By posting content on this forum that's contrary to this movement and the forum rules, you chosen to not honoring the forum rules. Are you being ethical by not honoring the rules of this forum?

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    However, I could ban people if my forum were by invitation only and password protected so that the public couldn't see the content.
    Yes you can, but that's not a restrictive criteria. Media outlets such as MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc. post content that the public can see, but I can't go up to them and tell them that they are required by law to let me post what I want to on their websites.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Then you know as well as I do that it was wrong of them.
    No, I don't know that. It has nothing to do with right or wrong; they made a choice about how they want to run their forum and as a result I made my own choice about not continuing to participate on their forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Whether a law is on the books is irrelevant to the morality of it. It was underhanded and not keeping with the rights of the people to see what you have to say.
    It might have been underhanded, but it's not depriving anyone's rights; I have no right to force them to post what I want to say. It's their private property, not mine.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Yes, everyone wants safe spaces and desires to push their propaganda unchallenged. Rightwingers are no exception and possibly worse than the left.
    I don't know about it being worse, only different agendas that are propagandized.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    I'd love to see the supreme court rule on this because I'm confident they would see it our way.
    I don't know what you mean by "our way" & who's "[us]"?
    Last edited by Neil; 01-14-2017 at 02:35 PM.
    droneBEE likes this.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia
    Posts
    1,212
    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Btw, changing your IP is easy. Just change your MAC address and you get a new one. Could do that endlessly.
    Sure, but that's all beside the point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Didn't feel like photoshopping and didn't figure the point was difficult to see.
    It doesn't matter whether or not you did photoshop it. It's still a question of relevance or association.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    I don't know why you're arguing with me when you agree with me. Some sort of dissonance I guess.
    No, we do not agree - at least not with the stuff being discussed here. How do you figure we agree? That doesn't make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    They have to provide nutritional content because the public has a right to know what's inside. Likewise, the public has a right to alternative and opposing viewpoints to publicly accessible information.
    But McDonalds doesn't have to provide nutritional content of Burger King's Whopper.

    And no, the public does not have a right to alternative and opposing viewpoints to publicly accessible information; however, you're free to make your own alternative and opposing viewpoints to publicly accessible information on your own forum available to the public.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    For instance, I can't say "gmo food is unhealthy" in a public forum and ban everyone who disagrees because it's against the public good.
    Actually yes you can.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    The only mechanism to determine truth is public scrutiny.
    I don't know about that & it's a bit philosophically beyond the scope of what we're discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    You can't have a public horn to spout whatever you want in an unchallenged manner.
    Sure you can, until it does get challenged.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Blogs and books are different because there is no illusion of a public forum where posts are supported by cheers, likes, upvotes, etc.
    Irrelevant; TZM is not a public forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    That type of unilateral support is misleading and shouldn't be censored.
    The 1st Amendment only prevents the state from being able to censor anyone; the owner or operator of a private online forum has a right to censor whoever they please on their private property. Just because an online forum can be viewed by the public doesn't somehow make the private owners of that online forum, or its admins, state officials; that's what would have to be true in order for your logic to work.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    No one.
    Exactly.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    I'm saying the act of censorship is removing the only mechanism we have to determine truth, therefore anything that is censored is fake news.

    If TZM deletes posts, then TZM is fake because it has to guard its fakeness with censorship, otherwise the truth would damage it. Do you see?
    Well I don't agree with your generalized position. Let's suppose everything posted on some online forum happened to be truth, until some person X got on the forum and posted something that isn't true, then the content that person X was deleted (meaning person X was censored). It does not logically follow that such a online forum is perpetuating fake news.

    BTW, TZM forum is not a news outlet nor does it claim to be one (and that's not to say that members won't post something that happens to be news, from time to time).

    If anything would make this TZM forum fake, it would as a result of folks like you posting content that doesn't belong here; so you have yourself to thank for making TZM forum fake.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Why did Patrick Henry say "Give me liberty, or give me death!"?
    He had a good reason for saying so; he was opposing repression by the state. TZM forum is not the state.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    I'm fighting for my right to say what I want and for the public's right to read what people want to say. Seems a noble cause, no?
    It would be a noble cause and I'd be fighting alongside with you; but it's unnecessary, right now. You already do have the right to say what you want and create an online forum (even hundreds or thousands of them) so people can read it & anyone else, who has something to say, can also do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    Not really.
    Well I would challenge you to produce evidence of a single person who's an employee of TZM, or a single penny of profit TZM forum has ever made. Have you ever seen a single ad appear on your computer from this online forum?

    Maybe you mean something analogous and close to corporate censorship; but technically that cannot happen with TZM forum because it doesn't meet the criteria to qualify.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    You are defending the right of a corporation to own words and censor its forum by the numerous mentions of "private ownership".
    I don't know about the "own words" part, but basically yes, I am indeed defending property rights. You don't have to accept or agree; but if you're opposed to that, then what that means you want is for the state to force the owner of online forums to let people post whatever they want. You want the state to send men with guns after the owners of online forums if they delete something someone posted or decide they no longer want to pay the web host to have this forum online. You're calling for PJ, or whoever owns this forum, to be your slave.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    It's strange to have a capitalist representing TZM.
    LOL that's for topics for several other threads; but basically yeah, I understand what you mean.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    What you're saying is that the one with the most money has the biggest forum and then has the loudest voice.
    Nope; I think that's what you're projecting. It so happens that setting up an online forum really isn't that expensive (it seems it can be done for less than $200/yr); in fact I think it might even be possible with no cost (i.e., you might have to put up with ads being plastered all over the forum). How do you define loud voice? Is TZM forum a loud voice? How did it get to be that way?

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    You're suggesting I start my own forum to compete with TZM.
    I'm merely pointing out that the state isn't censoring you given that it's possible for you to do such a thing. In fact it has been done before; there have been other groups that have created forums to compete with TZM, for both advocating similar things as well as for criticizing or opposing TZM.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    So you're supporting "private ownership" of public platforms.
    I'm supporting the right of the private owners of private platforms to do what they want with their own property. The overall Internet is a public platform; I'm not advocating private control of all the content on the Internet. You're able to place whatever content you wish on the public platform known as the Internet by creating your own website or online forum. That's how & why this (TZM's online forum) is here now. If I were to oppose being able to set up an online forum then I'd be opposed to TZM's online forum; but I'm not opposed to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    You're supporting competition-to-be-heard by the size of one's wallet.
    How do you figure?

    Quote Originally Posted by SophicDrippins View Post
    That seems to be against the fundamentals of TZM.



    That's hypocritical. See here: Should overt racist speech be free under a RBE?

    And here: Should overt racist speech be free under a RBE?



    I'm within the rules. See above. The best thing that has ever happened to TZM is lack of mods.
    Given that you're able to make it fake I can't say that I agree with you on this.

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    No, that's not what the problem is; it's that you don't get the background behind the "safe space" idea & you're trying to repurpose it to serve your personal agenda here on this forum. In order for it to work you have to con folks on this forum to accept your assertion. I've pulled back the curtain and exposed this, so now it's not going to work for you, anymore. By continuing to press on with your exposed & foiled con job, all you're doing is exhibiting the traits of insanity - trying the same thing over & over, and expecting a different result.
    No I'm not trying to repurpose. No safe spaces at all, ever. Not for me or anyone. Whether it says school or college doesn't matter.

    That doesn't matter, unless you can give a good reason for disagreeing - which I don't think you've succeeded in providing.
    I've explained it once but can't force you to understand.

    Maybe it just shows that you're not be the only one; how is it mutually exclusive, as you're implying?
    Because I (me, myself) am the only one (mutually exclusive) on this board (apparently) who does not want to censor the content of this board.

    where did I engage in any ad homs?
    post #34 "Yeah, I know; that's why I had to explain it to you." Implication is I'm stupid. Ad hom. I could find others.

    I'm not going to respond to your loaded question; you're engaging in spin by cherry picking the rules & using a red herring. Here are the parts of the rules you're not taking into account:
    I disagree with your assertion of cherry picking, red herring, et el.

    The Zeitgeist Movement's Global Forum is not an "Open-Forum" for anyone to come and participate without prior material understanding OR a supportive intent.
    I have a prior understanding, which is all that's needed. I have somewhat of a supportive intent in that I see RBE as an eventuality regardless of TZM. My main objection is that RBE is not something that can be engineered.

    The purpose of this Forum is to facilitate a positive, productive, unified medium for supporters of TZM to interact and progress ideas and projects in a supportive and safe community environment. It is a meeting place for those who support TZM and are active in our Educational Projects, such as Chapters, Projects and Teams.
    I don't stick my beak in those other sections. I'm in no one's way. I'm on no one's lawn. Three members have taken time to support my presence here. The ones who want me to leave are the ones who want to censor the content of the board for political purposes. Even Hal supported my presence, until he found I was a theist (discrimination on the basis of religion?).

    Yeah & that includes me, for at least some of your content (i.e., the kind of content that doesn't belong on this forum).
    What content does not belong? Science? No molyneux posts because molyneux is backed by science that you can't refute for your political agenda? That would be the only sensible reason to censor content. Otherwise, you'd look forward to refuting his lame arguments.

    I don't know what you're referring to because I don't know what parts of it you've seen, so you'll have to elaborate on this. There was all kinds of stuff happening on it.
    I posted the link on here before, but I don't remember where. The point is that little has changed. Rather than simply spreading awareness, members are confrontational desiring to shove their beliefs down everyone's throat.

    You're trying to change the goal post & bringing a different claim or argument, now. I wasn't talking about what's ethical; I was talking about what's legal, property rights, etc.
    I never argued about legality to start with.. you did. My goal post has always been morality.

    Why wouldn't it be ethical? What are the consequences for something being ethical or not ethical supposed to be, and why?
    Already answered that. When amazon banned wikileaks, it was legal, but not ethical because people have a first amendment right to see wikileaks' content.

    If someone said I shouldn't eat meat because it would be unethical, it doesn't really tell me anything so it doesn't mean anything to me. If I'm hungry I'm simply going to ignore this claim that it's unethical and proceed with eating meat.
    Show me where the supreme court has given you reason to believe they would side with a decision to not eat meat.

    I have shown where the Court has decided people have a right to display political statements in non-public forums. You have to make a proper analogy.

    If someone said I shouldn't ban someone from my forum because it would be unethical, it doesn't really tell me anything so it doesn't mean anything to me. If I'm dissatisfied with someone on my forum I'm simply going to ignore this claim that it's unethical and proceed with banning them.
    That would mean you are unethical. What you're arguing is that before slavery was illegal, it was ethical to own slaves. Before DUI was illegal, it was ethical to drive drunk. Etc.

    By posting content on this forum that's contrary to this movement and the forum rules, you chosen to not honoring the forum rules. Are you being ethical by not honoring the rules of this forum?
    I'll try again:

    Let me know what part of this you do not understand because it's clear that there is some part of it that you do not understand otherwise I wouldn't need to repeat myself:

    Tzm forum rules

    Respectful communication is the core requirement in this Forum.

    To disagree with each other and/or certain aspects of TZM in general, supported with respectfully presented arguments is welcome.

    This is not to discourage skepticism and questioning - that is invited and needed. Rather, it is to make sure Users are able to communicate in a safe, respectful and comfortable manner with others.


    To disagree is welcome.

    Skepticism and questioning is invited and needed.

    What the rules do not want is ad hominem attacks that invariably result from disagreeing.

    Yes you can, but that's not a restrictive criteria. Media outlets such as MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc. post content that the public can see, but I can't go up to them and tell them that they are required by law to let me post what I want to on their websites.
    That's because nobody can. There is no mechanism for it, but if there were a mechanism for it, then they could not disallow you because of your beliefs. CNN couldn't have a comments section below an article and boot you out because they didn't like your belief. If you're disruptive, then yes, but not because of your beliefs.

    It might have been underhanded, but it's not depriving anyone's rights
    What's the difference? If it's underhanded, then it's a violation of rights by definition.

    I don't know what you mean by "our way" & who's "[us]"?
    You and I = us. If not for your dislike of me, you'd be arguing my side like you did here: Should overt racist speech be free under a RBE?

    You're displaying signs of cognitive dissonance because on one hand you support free speech, but on the other you don't like me. So you have to juggle your claims depending who you're arguing with. If you're talking to fsir, then you're for free speech. If you're talking to me, then corporate censorship. It seems fairly transparent.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    But McDonalds doesn't have to provide nutritional content of Burger King's Whopper.
    That has nothing to do with anything.

    And no, the public does not have a right to alternative and opposing viewpoints to publicly accessible information; however, you're free to make your own alternative and opposing viewpoints to publicly accessible information on your own forum available to the public.
    Yes they do. How Lieberman Got Amazon To Drop Wikileaks

    Actually yes you can.
    Nope.

    I don't know about that & it's a bit philosophically beyond the scope of what we're discussing.
    "The only mechanism to determine truth is public scrutiny." That's beyond your scope? Why?

    Irrelevant; TZM is not a public forum.
    Well it's certainly not private. If it were private, I would not know of it. That's the definition of private.

    The 1st Amendment only prevents the state from being able to censor anyone; the owner or operator of a private online forum has a right to censor whoever they please on their private property. Just because an online forum can be viewed by the public doesn't somehow make the private owners of that online forum, or its admins, state officials; that's what would have to be true in order for your logic to work.
    Then you need to educate some lawyers. Start with this law professor claiming youtube didn't have the right to ban him. YouTube Joins The "Fake News" Crusade, Shuts Down Popular Conservative Channel | Zero Hedge

    Well I don't agree with your generalized position.
    Of course not... because it's me who made the position.

    Let's suppose everything posted on some online forum happened to be truth, until some person X got on the forum and posted something that isn't true, then the content that person X was deleted (meaning person X was censored). It does not logically follow that such a online forum is perpetuating fake news.
    You're right. I should edit:

    The act of censorship is removing the only mechanism we have to determine truth, therefore anything that is censored should be assumed to be fake news.

    Well I would challenge you to produce evidence of a single person who's an employee of TZM, or a single penny of profit TZM forum has ever made. Have you ever seen a single ad appear on your computer from this online forum?
    I don't see any ads for anything. Haven't in years.

    Maybe you mean something analogous and close to corporate censorship; but technically that cannot happen with TZM forum because it doesn't meet the criteria to qualify.
    Yes it does.

    You don't have to accept or agree; but if you're opposed to that, then what that means you want is for the state to force the owner of online forums to let people post whatever they want.
    Yes. If those forums are publicly viewable and not private.

    You want the state to send men with guns after the owners of online forums if they delete something someone posted
    Yup.

    or decide they no longer want to pay the web host to have this forum online.
    No. If you remove the forum from public view, you can do whatever.

    You're calling for PJ, or whoever owns this forum, to be your slave.
    No.

    Nope; I think that's what you're projecting. It so happens that setting up an online forum really isn't that expensive (it seems it can be done for less than $200/yr); in fact I think it might even be possible with no cost (i.e., you might have to put up with ads being plastered all over the forum). How do you define loud voice? Is TZM forum a loud voice? How did it get to be that way?
    This is going on right now with youtube and how many millions did google pay for youtube? Now google has the right to censor content for political reasons?

    I'm supporting the right of the private owners of private platforms to do what they want with their own property.
    Me too, just not in public view. If you want a private platform, then keep it private. If you want to make a public statement with a private platform, then fine, but don't provide a false illusion that the statement was publicly supported. In other words, you can't make a public statement where it appears you have support from the public when in fact the dissenters have been banned. That's a false illusion of scrutiny.

    How do you figure?
    Because you said start my own forum and compete.

    Given that you're able to make it fake I can't say that I agree with you on this.
    I'm not able to make it fake because people are able to present contrary arguments.

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    I don't know what you're referring to because I don't know what parts of it you've seen, so you'll have to elaborate on this. There was all kinds of stuff happening on it.
    This is some of what I was referring to:

    https://forum.culteducation.com/read...2,97823,page=6

    The whole thread is about being banned unfairly. Had TZM been more pliable instead of trying to be right, it wouldn't have generated so much hatred. Underhanded schemes such as censoring "safe spaces" are unethical because you reap what you sow... and what is growing is nasty, which supports the premise.

    Google "TZM cult" (About 26,500 results)

    People don't like you. It doesn't matter if you make sense or not, you've made enemies with abrasive behavior.

    TZM moderators did something wrong and instead of apologizing, they chose to hide and delete information about their own personal wrong doing. That is cultist abuse!!!

    Do they really think that a goal justifies wrong doing?

    It is not like this was yesterday either. TZM has time to rethink their position and restore the complete post, my account, and apologize. Instead, we watch as TZM hopelessly tries to preach to us that the end justifies the means, which is just another cultist red flag.
    Probably why they deleted the whole forum.

    It is a cult because Neil who is now posting here uses an ad hominem double standard and rabidly attacks people on the forums in order to bully and intimidate them as the primary form of social control. It is a cult because it shares 50 axioms with armageddon theology and another 50 with out right satanism and another 50 with outright anarchism and another 50 with outright satanism.

    It is a cult, it is an abusive, fascist, totalitarian, satanic cult, and it is a violent, evil, socially reprehensible cult. It is absolutely a cult, and nothing that neil can say can change these facts.

    But if you really want to understand him, or to see the truth of the matter, ask neil why he deleted over a dozen threads about me, and ask him why I was banned from his forum.

    You see, I tried to help them. I tried to fish them out of their cultness. I had threads up about brainwaves and sleepwalking in the nicest possible simple factual way. But neil attacked me, attacked my factual information and called it crazy, hit me with 20 or 30 ad hominems, and when i wouldn't roll over he banned me.
    Is he referring to you? Or is that a different neil?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neil View Post
    We used to gang up and tear folks like you guys to shreds both on that forum and especially in the chat room, when they made the unfortunate decision to wander in there.
    I could believe it's you.

    VTV is here to tell you it just isn't so. Whats not easy to spot is that he is in fact a bully, an ad hominem junkie, a sociopath, a manipulative con artist, and a chronic habitual liar. Whats not easy to spot is that his dogmatic system is not about helping people, its about making them wrong in order to vamp off claiming the moral high ground. He will lie, censor, demean, insult, blacklist (the tzm cult forum hosts a blacklist and falsely names me and many other people as trolls. This list was used to encourage his entire cult to cyberstalk and falsely report against people on FB; to the effect that many people lost their accounts.) ...the list goes on and on. Name a dysfunctional or cult behavior and I can promise you i can list several instances of it.
    The actual truth is that TZM/ TVP is a dogmatic system, which exists in direct contravention to known science facts of sociology, biology, psychology, systems theory, game theory, paradigmology, and formal conversational logic.
    It is the reasons why you ban people that makes it a cult. You ban people for merely pointing out that you are ad homming.
    A new word to put in google searches: zeitard
    That is one JUICY thread!

    So is TZM a cult? I don't think it is, but I think some members want it to be.

    When someone says, "Race and sex are social constructs and any evidence to the contrary should be censored", that makes it a cult because it's centered around an incontrovertible belief. If someone challenges that belief, they are stigmatized with emotionally-charged labels with the intent of rallying the mob.

    Cult test

    The organisation controls its people by group pressure
    The organisation gets people to confess their sins or evils
    The organisation's methods are perfect. Any fault lies with the person, not with the methods.
    The organisation redefines words (especially emotionally-charged words) to suit its outlook in the world.
    The organisation asks its members to experience first before criticizing.


    I'm just pointing out that underhanded tactics to propagandize your belief is doing your movement more harm than good.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1