Jamaica Board - Let's Change It

[Dukasaur]

LOL at your continued intellectual dishonesty.
When you say the "majority of people in this thread" you really mean the minority of people in this thread. By my count there are 6 people in support and 8 opposed and 1 person open to a minor change. I see that you edited your first version calling us a minority of white people from white dominated cultures to "whitesplainers". You love to make personal attacks as you have no real substance to your opinions...
Maybe I should lower myself to your level and accuse you of blacksplaining .

Wow, I rarely find someone this devout in his defense of a system that has kept many, many people of color in poverty, unless I'm dealing with a member of the KKK. And rarely do I see them so obviously racist, usually they've got the common sense to at least pretend that they're living in a free country, not a white country that barely tolerates anything different.

And for someone who's added nothing of substance to this thread, you sure are attacking a lot of others. But nobody's really surprised when people who ask you not to display racist symbols, and suddenly history is 'under attack,' because we all know not depicting slavery on a CC map is going to thrash history somehow magically.

Kotaro do try to debate honestly. Who is "defending a system."? Absolutely nobody! Loutil has been crystal-clear that slavery is despicable.

We can agree slavery is horrid and does not belong anywhere in a civilized society. But, we get to that point because our history has taught us that.

Crystal-clear.

Slavery is evil, as are many other things humans have done to each other, but retroactively censoring history to pretend they didn't happen is idiotic.

[riskllama]

how about cairnswk were to change it to "free local labour"? would that make everybody happy?

[mrswdk]

But it seems pretty obvious by this point that a majority of people in this thread are saying the Jamaica map in its current form is inappropriate and ought to change, minus a bit of a chorus from the usual whitesplainers.

LOL at your continued intellectual dishonesty.
When you say the "majority of people in this thread" you really mean the minority of people in this thread. By my count there are 6 people in support and 8 opposed and 1 person open to a minor change. I see that you edited your first version calling us a minority of white people from white dominated cultures to "whitesplainers". You love to make personal attacks as you have no real substance to your opinions...
Maybe I should lower myself to your level and accuse you of blacksplaining .

I gave some serious views right near the top of page one and your response was to ignore all of that, put your fingers in your ears and just assert that the only people who care are people who 'choose to be offended by history'. So there is not really any point trying to engage you seriously.

[loutil]

LOL at your continued intellectual dishonesty.
When you say the "majority of people in this thread" you really mean the minority of people in this thread. By my count there are 6 people in support and 8 opposed and 1 person open to a minor change. I see that you edited your first version calling us a minority of white people from white dominated cultures to "whitesplainers". You love to make personal attacks as you have no real substance to your opinions...
Maybe I should lower myself to your level and accuse you of blacksplaining .

Wow, I rarely find someone this devout in his defense of a system that has kept many, many people of color in poverty, unless I'm dealing with a member of the KKK. And rarely do I see them so obviously racist, usually they've got the common sense to at least pretend that they're living in a free country, not a white country that barely tolerates anything different.

And for someone who's added nothing of substance to this thread, you sure are attacking a lot of others. But nobody's really surprised when people who ask you not to display racist symbols, and suddenly history is 'under attack,' because we all know not depicting slavery on a CC map is going to thrash history somehow magically.

I feel like a broken record when I have to keep pointing out the intellectual dishonesty in people's responses to my comments. I have not now, nor have I ever defended the system of slavery. To suggest otherwise is just a lie you tell yourself to make yourself feel superior when you do not agree with me. Contrary to your statement, I do live in a free country. Can you point me to another country that has freely elected a leader who is from an ethnic minority that represents only around 13% of the population? Obama says hello....
While you may not like the "substance" that I bring to this thread, I freely choose to comment anyway. It is interesting to note that you claim that I am attacking others but have no comment about those that have directly attacked me (like yourself, for example )
As to your last point...no, history is not going to be thrashed if we do not depict slavery on a CC map. But, I seriously doubt anyone has ever played that map and suddenly felt offended and harmed.
For context: I am Jewish and lost family in the Holocaust. Seeing a swastika, on a map, does not offend me in any way. Further, I laugh at people like mrswdk who choose to put my quotes on a Nazi picture. He does not know me and you certainly do not know me. Yet, you choose to make sweeping generalizations and try to paint me as some kind of racist. My friends, who know me quite well, would also be laughing at you.

[loutil]

But it seems pretty obvious by this point that a majority of people in this thread are saying the Jamaica map in its current form is inappropriate and ought to change, minus a bit of a chorus from the usual whitesplainers.

LOL at your continued intellectual dishonesty.
When you say the "majority of people in this thread" you really mean the minority of people in this thread. By my count there are 6 people in support and 8 opposed and 1 person open to a minor change. I see that you edited your first version calling us a minority of white people from white dominated cultures to "whitesplainers". You love to make personal attacks as you have no real substance to your opinions...
Maybe I should lower myself to your level and accuse you of blacksplaining .

I gave some serious views right near the top of page one and your response was to ignore all of that, put your fingers in your ears and just assert that the only people who care are people who 'choose to be offended by history'. So there is not really any point trying to engage you seriously.

You are certainly entertaining.
You should not engage with me because you cannot respond in an honest fashion without making personal attacks . You have attacked me, personally, multiple times in this thread with no actual response to what I have said. Your first actual words to me, in response to my post was as follows:

How brave, a white guy living in the US is strong enough to choose not to be upset by all the discrimination he experiences in his day-to-day life.

Then, when you tried to assert, dishonestly, that the majority of the people in this thread agree with you, I called you out with facts and responded in kind to your personal attack. No acknowledgment of your misstatement. No apologies for you personal attacks. No substance of any kind. Yeah...no point in trying to engage .

[Compalomp]

I just want to point out that everyone defending the map is on the same side of the argument as the guy whose screen name is "ConfederateSS"

[ConfederateSS]

I just want to point out that everyone defending the map is on the same side of the argument as the guy whose screen name is "ConfederateSS"

--------Confederate...I was Honoring my Father...Who made us watch Gone With The Wind ....over,and over...When I was little...Then He would watch it with my 2 daughters Selena and Sofia(are the Ss)when they were little...Selena typed in my name when we would spend time on the computer together years ago...You are new...My point was to the OP....He should of posted 14,10 or 5 years ago...Why?now....Why hasn't he posted since?...Not to mention ,this is a War game based site...Not Better Home and Gardens...The side....The side......The Side of Free Speech, Expression...The Side of Saving HISTORY...... ConfederateSS.out!(The Blue and Silver Rebellion)...

[loutil]

I just want to point out that everyone defending the map is on the same side of the argument as the guy whose screen name is "ConfederateSS"

LOL...why is that even relevant to the discussion? What if CondederateSS stated that he supports everything Compalomp espouses? Would that invalidate your opinions and what you support?

[Compalomp]

If LostCauseBlitzKrieg was backing my point I would certainly rethink things, yes.

[loutil]

If LostCauseBlitzKrieg was backing my point I would certainly rethink things, yes.

Then we are certainly different as I do not form my opinions based on who chooses to support them.

[.SCuD.]

overrules the rights of its members to not be offended by their content?

By choosing to talk about subjects that people care about, you risk offending people. There is no way around that.

There is rarely a reason to actively try to offend people, to choose words that you know will hurt them personally. It is needless, it is unkind.

Equally there is rarely a reason to water down a thought process because someone in the room may take offense to it.


And, for a bit of fun (but a logically sound bit of fun!)
Somewhat ironically, I take offense to people taking offense, but I will own that and accept that my taking offense is unproductive and should be disregarded by both me and others. My taking offense is, by my ruleset, irrelevant. What should be taken on board is the discussion / logical thought / argument that comes with anything.

BUT... if you think people have the right not to be offended, then you create for yourself a paradox... as I am offended by you getting offended. You have violated the rights you claimed for humanity when you offended me. The only logical conclusion, within your ruleset, is that I have the right for you to not take offense to anything that is not a direct personal attack on you.

[.SCuD.]

If LostCauseBlitzKrieg was backing my point I would certainly rethink things, yes.

Then we are certainly different as I do not form my opinions based on who chooses to support them.

This is crucial, it seems, in politics, ideologies and worldviews.

Perhaps 50% of things in that domain etc aren't related at all to left or right political leaning, but in the real world you find that almost all people on the left think one thing, and all the people on the right think the other thing.

It is because of tribalism. People pick heroes and agree with them. They pick villains and disagree with them. There is very little actual thought. Many times when having a discussion with someone you are not really discussing anything with that person, you are simply offering them targets at which they can point their rehearsed ideological lines.
There is zero room for them to maneuver intellectually, to discuss nuance, or to change their mind, because they aren't thinking anyway. Their hero has given them the answer. Anything that disagrees must be wrong, even if they don't exactly know why. Their hero would know, for sure, their hero would be able to silence this dissident. And they keep on believing.


Note: As an example, Brexit recently in the UK. The majority of left wing people voted to remain in the EU, whilst the right went to leave. If we had that same vote 20 years ago it would have been flipped. Most left wing people wanted to leave! There is nuance to this, of course, no example will be perfect. But there are hundreds.

[Extreme Ways]

The general public is often not qualified to argue political problems. And sometimes we argue about the wrong things. Let us take immigrants as an example. We may agree that immigrants are a problem in country X, but we may not agree on the root of the problem or how to solve it. Besides, there's so many intricacies all the time that we're not aware of as regular people.

It's not great to base your opinion on the opinion of someone else, but it can definitely be a good starting point. If someone I trust and oftentimes agree with holds opinion Y on topic Z that I know nothing about but I know s/he does, I'm inclined to trust the truthfulness and validity of his arguments.

[mrswdk]

There is rarely a reason to actively try to offend people, to choose words that you know will hurt them personally. It is needless, it is unkind.

So once someone has told you that they find something offensive or alienating, would it be needless/unkind if you were to continue saying it anyway?

[.SCuD.]

There is rarely a reason to actively try to offend people, to choose words that you know will hurt them personally. It is needless, it is unkind.

So once someone has told you that they find something offensive or alienating, would it be needless/unkind if you were to continue saying it anyway?

It depends. If you called an entirely innocent person a fat mess Without provocation but in jest, and they said they found it offensive then obviously it would be needless and unkind to continue

If someone finds it offensive and alienating when you discuss particular logical throught processes, then no it is not needless or unkind to continue.

Edit: I just saw your signature. Prior to that I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I think shows beyond reasonable doubt that you don’t really care about offending anyone at all. Worse in fact, you seem to see it as a desirable thing to do.
As I stated above I think that it is fine to offend someone if it is a by product of a statement... it is not okay to do so when it is the point of a statement.
I think your signature is only there in an attempt to misrepresent and cause offence.
It seems you only care about offending an alienating when it fits with your specific ideology. There is no integrity in that.

[.SCuD.]

The general public is often not qualified to argue political problems. And sometimes we argue about the wrong things. Let us take immigrants as an example. We may agree that immigrants are a problem in country X, but we may not agree on the root of the problem or how to solve it. Besides, there's so many intricacies all the time that we're not aware of as regular people.

It's not great to base your opinion on the opinion of someone else, but it can definitely be a good starting point. If someone I trust and oftentimes agree with holds opinion Y on topic Z that I know nothing about but I know s/he does, I'm inclined to trust the truthfulness and validity of his arguments.

I agree. But in that instance it is, I think, better to present it as simply a belief based on someone you trust and one you accept you don’t understand to the fullest. Generally it is presented by people as a well though out stance. It rarely actually is.

Equally I think it is unreasonable to expect someone to change their opinion immediately on a subject. The best response is often “that’s an interesting point. I’ll think about it and may reconsider”. If someone just immediately changes their mind then they almost certainly still aren’t thinking!

[.SCuD.]

I was going to add this in to a previous post, but I think it deserves its own post.

mrswdk has placed a statement made by someone next to a swastika and a Nazi salute. That is bad enough on its own when that person has made no statement that suggests they are associated with any form of Naziism.
It is made worse when we find out that the statement is from someone that mrswdk knows to be Jewish with family who died in the holocaust.

I believe it is time for all the people who have been making claims about problems with the Jamaica map to first deal with the much larger problem of mrswdk.

In any Western society mrswdk could be tried for an anti-Semitic hate crime based on this alone. People have lost criminal trials based on far less.

I presume that will not happen in this instance (isn’t the anonymity of the internet useful When you’ve made such horrific statements), but regardless of your opinion on any other subject it is certainly time to call out mrswdk for the awful things he says and does..

Such flagrant racism of this nature must not be accepted.

[mrswdk]

It's interesting how you were so enthusiastic in defending anyone's right to say anything 'logical' if they want to, up until I said something you didn't agree with at which point your response was a three-post diatribe screeching about how I'm an anti-Semite who deserves to be taken to criminal trial.

But then you are also the guy who described this thread as 'a bit of fun' before later saying that any offense you profess to be taking should be totally disregarded by anyone reading your posts, so at least you were up front about how disingenuous your contributions to this thread were going to be.

[.SCuD.]

It's interesting how you were so enthusiastic in defending anyone's right to say anything 'logical' if they want to, up until I said something you didn't agree with at which point your response was a three-post diatribe screeching about how I'm an anti-Semite who deserves to be taken to criminal trial.

But then you are also the guy who described this thread as 'a bit of fun' before later saying that any offense you profess to be taking should be totally disregarded by anyone reading your posts, so at least you were up front about how disingenuous your contributions to this thread were going to be.

No those are separate things. I don’t think you said anything I didn’t agree with, you asked me a question. A question I answered reasonably, and in good faith.

I called you an anti-Semite because you misrepresented the statements of a
Jewish man who had family who died in the holocaust and depicted them next to a Swastika and a Nazi salute... you can try and get out of it all you want but there really is no other reason.

But my post really wasn’t for you. You’ve shown yourself to be a horrific and unapologetic racist of the highest order. I expect nothing better from you. My post was for other people who still have some moral fibre.

Edit: on all the other things you just said about me and what I’ve said, I really have no interest in responding. What you said is riddled with almost pure dishonesty. So your statement is not worth a defence.

[mrswdk]

>calls me a racist and an anti-Semite
>accuses me of being dishonest

lol k

[loutil]

>calls me a racist and an anti-Semite
>accuses me of being dishonest

lol k

I think he summed you up quite well....

[rockfist]

Never get in a mud wrestling contest with a pig.

[riskllama]

lol, mrs ain't no racist - just a troll.

[Nut Shot Scott]

If I can sum up what I'm reading:

- You're racist lemmings if you disagree with OP.
- You're racist lemmings if you agree with OP.
- You're just plain racist if you're trolling.
- You're racist lemmings if you're white.
- You're racist lemmings if you're from the USA.
- You're mainly lemmings but probably racist, too if you're from the UK.
- You're definitely a racist lemming if you like llamas.

So pretty much, everyone is racist and we can all agree to disagree that this map that resides in a small, ignored corner of the WWW does or does not need to be changed due to the offensiveness or inoffensiveness of depictions of slaves, aka "free local labour", who did exist but we don't want to have existed in a place that may or may not want to acknowledge this part of their history for reasons that could be valid but also might be totally invalid. Complicated...

[riskllama]

lol - Nut Shot Scott wins this thread.