That's most unfortunate to hear, and I'm sorry you've had to live life like that, I knew a kid from high school who had 1 arm and did residential construction with me at the tech school. If there's a will, there's a way, sort of. There will always be limitations of course. I hope the best, at the very least.
Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine #votebluenomatterwhat are you having fun al? are you having van al? gaolang > your fav imagine thinking trump is the good guy is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? it's over for trump life goal sister harem loli mfw kamala harris can actually win real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you worst thread ever
- For the narration, I did changed definitions. Simply because the words I needed to use are simply badly defined for the public from an objective narrative standpoint. And since I know a few thing about narration and those words or concept weren't clarified or aknowledge, I defined them.
- For the political. I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing on the other hand, is using definition used by people who actually work on the subjects we were talking about such as scientists or militant. If your point is that I sometimes refused to use dictionnary definition because they were outdated in regard to those knowledge and usage, then yes.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with doing that. But the way you are phrasing your sentence make it look like you are trying to tell that I'm somehow inconsistant or just delulu about the real meaning of the words I'm using. Which, like I explained, can't be further from the truth. I'm actually always trying to be very precise in the usage of my words.
Hence why I'm asking you to understand what I'm writing instead of reading it through the veil of your own biases.
Indeed. This are really not my predilection domains but what I'm talking about is not economy or history (mainly at least).
I'm talking about values BEHIND economy and history.
And for that, I don't need to know deeply about the subject. I only need to be deeply aware of the relevancy of those values for those subjects. So when I'm saying that meritocracy and liberalism leads to capitalism and toxic values, I don't need to explain it with history or economically. I only need to explain it to you through the prism of value system. Because, despite your awareness on those subjects, you seems to be blind that values are what rule the world. And no matter your economy, if the value behind it are toxic, the economy will be toxic.
In what way ?
Yup, conservatives and toxic ones. I'm sorry, but you seems to think that leftism means that we must be angels with minorities and women when they F up. That's not the case.
Again, if you think that leftists are kind to each other you are completely blind. I don't like social traitors.
Like ?
Oh , you mean the Nakama thread ?
They simply couldn't handle my political interventions. And by "they", I meant the staff.
I suppose you are talking about the Nakama thread since I never invented concepts here :
When narrative terms are described with care and great lengh, there is no reason not to understand them. But what I saw in the Nakama thread was not missunderstanding nor debate. What I saw was laughs. From the beginning to the end.
So while I excuse ignorance. I don't excuse foolishness.
You take that as you wish mate :)
No objective facts here as always. What you did is take reality and bend it the way your biases told you to bend it because of the missunderstanding you hold of those discussions.
Sadly I can't do anything about that. I can only hope that one day you will be able to get rid of your biases.
But then again.. its this type of BS that motivate me to write so.. in a way.. stay the way you are, it keeps me going
- For the political. I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing on the other hand, is using definition used by people who actually work on the subjects we were talking about such as scientists or militant. If your point is that I sometimes refused to use dictionnary definition because they were outdated in regard to those knowledge and usage, then yes.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with doing that. But the way you are phrasing your sentence make it look like you are trying to tell that I'm somehow inconsistant or just delulu about the real meaning of the words I'm using. Which, like I explained, can't be further from the truth. I'm actually always trying to be very precise in the usage of my words.
Hence why I'm asking you to understand what I'm writing instead of reading it through the veil of your own biases.
Indeed. This are really not my predilection domains but what I'm talking about is not economy or history (mainly at least).
I'm talking about values BEHIND economy and history.
And for that, I don't need to know deeply about the subject. I only need to be deeply aware of the relevancy of those values for those subjects. So when I'm saying that meritocracy and liberalism leads to capitalism and toxic values, I don't need to explain it with history or economically. I only need to explain it to you through the prism of value system. Because, despite your awareness on those subjects, you seems to be blind that values are what rule the world. And no matter your economy, if the value behind it are toxic, the economy will be toxic.
In what way ?
Yup, conservatives and toxic ones. I'm sorry, but you seems to think that leftism means that we must be angels with minorities and women when they F up. That's not the case.
Again, if you think that leftists are kind to each other you are completely blind. I don't like social traitors.
Like ?
Oh , you mean the Nakama thread ?
They simply couldn't handle my political interventions. And by "they", I meant the staff.
I suppose you are talking about the Nakama thread since I never invented concepts here :
When narrative terms are described with care and great lengh, there is no reason not to understand them. But what I saw in the Nakama thread was not missunderstanding nor debate. What I saw was laughs. From the beginning to the end.
So while I excuse ignorance. I don't excuse foolishness.
You take that as you wish mate :)
No objective facts here as always. What you did is take reality and bend it the way your biases told you to bend it because of the missunderstanding you hold of those discussions.
Sadly I can't do anything about that. I can only hope that one day you will be able to get rid of your biases.
But then again.. its this type of BS that motivate me to write so.. in a way.. stay the way you are, it keeps me going
You don’t need “motivation” to do anything
While I’m sure you are struggling with some issues. I don’t know to what degree this is actually disabling you.
If you’re not working, how are you getting the money to live and spend all your time on this site? And if you didn’t get that money, what do you think would happen to you?
Would you just be chronically homeless or would you finally have the motivation to do stuff?
And taking medication for this doesn’t help?
While I’m sure you are struggling with some issues. I don’t know to what degree this is actually disabling you.
If you’re not working, how are you getting the money to live and spend all your time on this site? And if you didn’t get that money, what do you think would happen to you?
Would you just be chronically homeless or would you finally have the motivation to do stuff?
Post automatically merged:
And taking medication for this doesn’t help?
Actually.. you need motivation to do everything.
Between 50 and 80%. (Probably more around 60%). At least that what the organism that allow me to have a financial help is saying.
A system called AAH. (allowance for disabled adults in english). Difficult to get, I actually just got it after a long period of specialist consideration. I was in RSA (Active solidarity income) before that.
The streets.
A little (especially this last year) but not enough as of right now to get me out of a room or work actively on projects.
Between 50 and 80%. (Probably more around 60%). At least that what the organism that allow me to have a financial help is saying.
A system called AAH. (allowance for disabled adults in english). Difficult to get, I actually just got it after a long period of specialist consideration. I was in RSA (Active solidarity income) before that.
The streets.
A little (especially this last year) but not enough as of right now to get me out of a room or work actively on projects.
Last edited:
People should stfu for once and just type avolition on internet
You’ve been seeking a treatment for a decade ? Nothing has been found for 10years for you ?
Post automatically merged:
For my part a treatment is underway, we are trying to figure things out. It takes time, but I'm optimistic.
Last edited:
- For the narration, I did changed definitions. Simply because the words I needed to use are simply badly defined for the public from an objective narrative standpoint. And since I know a few thing about narration and those words or concept weren't clarified or aknowledge, I defined them.
- For the political. I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing on the other hand, is using definition used by people who actually work on the subjects we were talking about such as scientists or militant. If your point is that I sometimes refused to use dictionnary definition because they were outdated in regard to those knowledge and usage, then yes.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with doing that. But the way you are phrasing your sentence make it look like you are trying to tell that I'm somehow inconsistant or just delulu about the real meaning of the words I'm using. Which, like I explained, can't be further from the truth. I'm actually always trying to be very precise in the usage of my words.
Hence why I'm asking you to understand what I'm writing instead of reading it through the veil of your own biases.
Indeed. This are really not my predilection domains but what I'm talking about is not economy or history (mainly at least).
I'm talking about values BEHIND economy and history.
And for that, I don't need to know deeply about the subject. I only need to be deeply aware of the relevancy of those values for those subjects. So when I'm saying that meritocracy and liberalism leads to capitalism and toxic values, I don't need to explain it with history or economically. I only need to explain it to you through the prism of value system. Because, despite your awareness on those subjects, you seems to be blind that values are what rule the world. And no matter your economy, if the value behind it are toxic, the economy will be toxic.
In what way ?
Yup, conservatives and toxic ones. I'm sorry, but you seems to think that leftism means that we must be angels with minorities and women when they F up. That's not the case.
Again, if you think that leftists are kind to each other you are completely blind. I don't like social traitors.
Like ?
Oh , you mean the Nakama thread ?
They simply couldn't handle my political interventions. And by "they", I meant the staff.
I suppose you are talking about the Nakama thread since I never invented concepts here :
When narrative terms are described with care and great lengh, there is no reason not to understand them. But what I saw in the Nakama thread was not missunderstanding nor debate. What I saw was laughs. From the beginning to the end.
So while I excuse ignorance. I don't excuse foolishness.
You take that as you wish mate :)
No objective facts here as always. What you did is take reality and bend it the way your biases told you to bend it because of the missunderstanding you hold of those discussions.
Sadly I can't do anything about that. I can only hope that one day you will be able to get rid of your biases.
But then again.. its this type of BS that motivate me to write so.. in a way.. stay the way you are, it keeps me going
- For the political. I don't remember doing that. What I remember doing on the other hand, is using definition used by people who actually work on the subjects we were talking about such as scientists or militant. If your point is that I sometimes refused to use dictionnary definition because they were outdated in regard to those knowledge and usage, then yes.
Now, there is absolutely no problem with doing that. But the way you are phrasing your sentence make it look like you are trying to tell that I'm somehow inconsistant or just delulu about the real meaning of the words I'm using. Which, like I explained, can't be further from the truth. I'm actually always trying to be very precise in the usage of my words.
Hence why I'm asking you to understand what I'm writing instead of reading it through the veil of your own biases.
Indeed. This are really not my predilection domains but what I'm talking about is not economy or history (mainly at least).
I'm talking about values BEHIND economy and history.
And for that, I don't need to know deeply about the subject. I only need to be deeply aware of the relevancy of those values for those subjects. So when I'm saying that meritocracy and liberalism leads to capitalism and toxic values, I don't need to explain it with history or economically. I only need to explain it to you through the prism of value system. Because, despite your awareness on those subjects, you seems to be blind that values are what rule the world. And no matter your economy, if the value behind it are toxic, the economy will be toxic.
In what way ?
Yup, conservatives and toxic ones. I'm sorry, but you seems to think that leftism means that we must be angels with minorities and women when they F up. That's not the case.
Again, if you think that leftists are kind to each other you are completely blind. I don't like social traitors.
Like ?
Oh , you mean the Nakama thread ?
They simply couldn't handle my political interventions. And by "they", I meant the staff.
I suppose you are talking about the Nakama thread since I never invented concepts here :
When narrative terms are described with care and great lengh, there is no reason not to understand them. But what I saw in the Nakama thread was not missunderstanding nor debate. What I saw was laughs. From the beginning to the end.
So while I excuse ignorance. I don't excuse foolishness.
You take that as you wish mate :)
No objective facts here as always. What you did is take reality and bend it the way your biases told you to bend it because of the missunderstanding you hold of those discussions.
Sadly I can't do anything about that. I can only hope that one day you will be able to get rid of your biases.
But then again.. its this type of BS that motivate me to write so.. in a way.. stay the way you are, it keeps me going
And you gotta except the fact that not everyone will like you, and that not liking you doesn't automatically consistute being toxic, right wing, or a traitor. MLK and Malcom X didn't even like each other much.
1. Wrong or rather not necessarily. Changing definitions and redefining terms can simply be due to a new set of knowledge and a new look on history and social structures.
2. As explained. I've done none of that concerning the political. So I don't understand why you are bringing that up.
Do you seriously feel like I want to be loved here ?
My first comment on this forum was literally a provocation to become the target of the hate of dozen of toxic users here...
Come on man..
Yup, I agree with that. But you are - once again - taking the problem backward. I'm not calling out the toxicity of people because they don't like me, I'm calling the toxicity of people because they are toxic.
Again, I don't care if you don't like me. If you have non toxic values and fight the good fight without insulting others without purpose, I don't see a problem with that. You can dislike me all you want, as long as you don't promote BS, I will never calling you out.
Since the beginning - and I put that on both the fact that I came at first as very antagonizing and maybe also on the fact that I've never gave up a single foot of ground to my opponent in debate - You and other staff member (but also random posters) are stuck in the belief that I want to prove something, be liked, be morally superior or whatever...
So to clarify,
- No I don't want to be morally superior, I'm really not, I just want this place to be safe.
- No I don't want to be liked. Would I like it ? Of course but that would only make my job harder here. I just want to make myself understood.
But yes. I do want to prove something to someone. But I don't think you understand who is the target.
I want to prove something to me.
I want to prove that change is possible.
Not only for this toxic forum. Not only for people here who are like I was before, or for this society that is spiraling into darkness, but also for me, personally, because of what I just explained in the last two pages.
Positive change gives me hope, in everything. And I'm not only striving for it in others, but also in me.
Since I'm on this forum I've changed my entire narrative perspective on One Piece at least twice, on the Carrot train at least twice again, in term of political values I've deradicalized myself from the new atheism islamophobic movement and radical scepticism, I became fully woke, I've learned a bit of sociology which completely eradicated my liberal tendancies, I'm starting to become a far leftist.. and on this forum I've changed/adapted my strategy to approach toxicity here at least 6 or 7 times !
I know all to well that change is hard, but I know also all too well how amazing it feels. So, maybe just maybe.. it might be the time for you to consider a new and different perspective about me.
2. As explained. I've done none of that concerning the political. So I don't understand why you are bringing that up.
Do you seriously feel like I want to be loved here ?
My first comment on this forum was literally a provocation to become the target of the hate of dozen of toxic users here...
Come on man..
Yup, I agree with that. But you are - once again - taking the problem backward. I'm not calling out the toxicity of people because they don't like me, I'm calling the toxicity of people because they are toxic.
Again, I don't care if you don't like me. If you have non toxic values and fight the good fight without insulting others without purpose, I don't see a problem with that. You can dislike me all you want, as long as you don't promote BS, I will never calling you out.
Since the beginning - and I put that on both the fact that I came at first as very antagonizing and maybe also on the fact that I've never gave up a single foot of ground to my opponent in debate - You and other staff member (but also random posters) are stuck in the belief that I want to prove something, be liked, be morally superior or whatever...
So to clarify,
- No I don't want to be morally superior, I'm really not, I just want this place to be safe.
- No I don't want to be liked. Would I like it ? Of course but that would only make my job harder here. I just want to make myself understood.
But yes. I do want to prove something to someone. But I don't think you understand who is the target.
I want to prove something to me.
I want to prove that change is possible.
Not only for this toxic forum. Not only for people here who are like I was before, or for this society that is spiraling into darkness, but also for me, personally, because of what I just explained in the last two pages.
Positive change gives me hope, in everything. And I'm not only striving for it in others, but also in me.
Since I'm on this forum I've changed my entire narrative perspective on One Piece at least twice, on the Carrot train at least twice again, in term of political values I've deradicalized myself from the new atheism islamophobic movement and radical scepticism, I became fully woke, I've learned a bit of sociology which completely eradicated my liberal tendancies, I'm starting to become a far leftist.. and on this forum I've changed/adapted my strategy to approach toxicity here at least 6 or 7 times !
I know all to well that change is hard, but I know also all too well how amazing it feels. So, maybe just maybe.. it might be the time for you to consider a new and different perspective about me.
1. Wrong or rather not necessarily. Changing definitions and redefining terms can simply be due to a new set of knowledge and a new look on history and social structures.
2. As explained. I've done none of that concerning the political. So I don't understand why you are bringing that up.
Do you seriously feel like I want to be loved here ?
My first comment on this forum was literally a provocation to become the target of the hate of dozen of toxic users here...
Come on man..
Yup, I agree with that. But you are - once again - taking the problem backward. I'm not calling out the toxicity of people because they don't like me, I'm calling the toxicity of people because they are toxic.
Again, I don't care if you don't like me. If you have non toxic values and fight the good fight without insulting others without purpose, I don't see a problem with that. You can dislike me all you want, as long as you don't promote BS, I will never calling you out.
Since the beginning - and I put that on both the fact that I came at first as very antagonizing and maybe also on the fact that I've never gave up a single foot of ground to my opponent in debate - You and other staff member (but also random posters) are stuck in the belief that I want to prove something, be liked, be morally superior or whatever...
So to clarify,
- No I don't want to be morally superior, I'm really not, I just want this place to be safe.
- No I don't want to be liked. Would I like it ? Of course but that would only make my job harder here. I just want to make myself understood.
But yes. I do want to prove something to someone. But I don't think you understand who is the target.
I want to prove something to me.
I want to prove that change is possible.
Not only for this toxic forum. Not only for people here who are like I was before, or for this society that is spiraling into darkness, but also for me, personally, because of what I just explained in the last two pages.
Positive change gives me hope, in everything. And I'm not only striving for it in others, but also in me.
Since I'm on this forum I've changed my entire narrative perspective on One Piece at least twice, on the Carrot train at least twice again, in term of political values I've deradicalized myself from the new atheism islamophobic movement and radical scepticism, I became fully woke, I've learned a bit of sociology which completely eradicated my liberal tendancies, I'm starting to become a far leftist.. and on this forum I've changed/adapted my strategy to approach toxicity here at least 6 or 7 times !
I know all to well that change is hard, but I know also all too well how amazing it feels. So, maybe just maybe.. it might be the time for you to consider a new and different perspective about me.
2. As explained. I've done none of that concerning the political. So I don't understand why you are bringing that up.
Do you seriously feel like I want to be loved here ?
My first comment on this forum was literally a provocation to become the target of the hate of dozen of toxic users here...
Come on man..
Yup, I agree with that. But you are - once again - taking the problem backward. I'm not calling out the toxicity of people because they don't like me, I'm calling the toxicity of people because they are toxic.
Again, I don't care if you don't like me. If you have non toxic values and fight the good fight without insulting others without purpose, I don't see a problem with that. You can dislike me all you want, as long as you don't promote BS, I will never calling you out.
Since the beginning - and I put that on both the fact that I came at first as very antagonizing and maybe also on the fact that I've never gave up a single foot of ground to my opponent in debate - You and other staff member (but also random posters) are stuck in the belief that I want to prove something, be liked, be morally superior or whatever...
So to clarify,
- No I don't want to be morally superior, I'm really not, I just want this place to be safe.
- No I don't want to be liked. Would I like it ? Of course but that would only make my job harder here. I just want to make myself understood.
But yes. I do want to prove something to someone. But I don't think you understand who is the target.
I want to prove something to me.
I want to prove that change is possible.
Not only for this toxic forum. Not only for people here who are like I was before, or for this society that is spiraling into darkness, but also for me, personally, because of what I just explained in the last two pages.
Positive change gives me hope, in everything. And I'm not only striving for it in others, but also in me.
Since I'm on this forum I've changed my entire narrative perspective on One Piece at least twice, on the Carrot train at least twice again, in term of political values I've deradicalized myself from the new atheism islamophobic movement and radical scepticism, I became fully woke, I've learned a bit of sociology which completely eradicated my liberal tendancies, I'm starting to become a far leftist.. and on this forum I've changed/adapted my strategy to approach toxicity here at least 6 or 7 times !
I know all to well that change is hard, but I know also all too well how amazing it feels. So, maybe just maybe.. it might be the time for you to consider a new and different perspective about me.
Most people are moderate or apolitical; they don't give a shit nor care much about politics. Real life politics and political morality got nothing to do with the Nakama discussion and its against rules, and you didn't care and persisted. Everyone in that thread banded together to to get rid of you for being annoying and making it political 24/7. Your response? You're gone cause of toxicity, right wingers, and/or leftist traitors, putting the blame on
others and made up political leaning.
At the same time, you try to dictate what posts are allowed in your own threads and come to the mods to delete them aka it's only okay if you bring political opinions in places that aren't wanted, always going on about your morality and positivity stuff.
Your whole gimmick is debating from a morality standpoint instead of a practical and historical one.
I'm just replying to you mate and you are again trying to twist reality with your wording lol, damn you never stop 
Rightists then. Gotcha
And the 1914 pages of this thread just proves how much people are not interested in politic on this forum.
Gotcha
But lets assume that is the case (which is not as if that was the case, we wouldn't be talking about One Piece on this forum) : Those who don't care about oppression when there is oppression are part of the problem. This is a position of priviledge and ignorance. Ergo not a position to be really proud of.
Let's say that slavery is about to be restaured. Well in that case, those saying "I don't care about politic" would simply be deepsh*ts. We are lucky, slavery is not back.. but we have transphobia, fascism rising, autoritarian capitalism, far right bigotry and so on...
So you are lucky that I'm patient with apolitical mate.
Also being moderate does not means you don't care about politics, its just means that you are incapable of owning your own political values.
On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. But I can't ask a apolitical to understand that.
Each crewmates in One Piece is a paragon of a set of value. For Usopp its pride and courage, for Luffy its the importance of freedom, for Nami its the importance of trust, for Zoro its the importance of Honor etc. Which means that each time we have a debate about a strawhat we also have a debate about values that should be put in the strawhat crew.
Sadly, since you guys were too focused in discussing the surface of the characters, you completely missed that point. (which is another reason why most of you don't understand what really makes a strawhat to begin with).
But.. what happens when you put potential strawhats in conflict with each others ? Well, this:
You are completely missing it, but the Nakama thread didn't start to be political because of me. It was ALWAYS political. And that's one of the reason why the Yamato / Carrot conflict created such debate and so many pages.
Behind Yamato VS Carrot, its was a political war. First on the value of the character : Carrot relies on this importance of wonder and growth while Yamato relies also on the importance of growth but also the importance of responsibility. Second on the value of the debaters : Yamato fan were mostly toxic toward Carrot and their fan but also were the representant of what they thought was the importance of having a strong, virilistic and lore related character to join the crew while Carrot fan were MOSTLY the opposite, they liked Carrot because of her story, they didn't necessaraly hated Yamato because of her personnality, some also because she was a furry and not at all because of her strenght.
This double opposition created a clash, on the legitimacy of the characters to join the crew and (when I arrived) on the legitimacy of the debater to have a serious conversation.
This was a CLASSICAL political debate.
What I did was simply explaining why we needed to understand that in order to have a good debate. You guys refused to listen, so I pushed the limits and I showed why the simple way a reader can see a character (in this case Carrot being an "animal" for some) was in fact the revelator of a political value burried deep (systemic racism) that was only freed because the character is "fictionnal".
But what you guys don't realize, is that only the story is fictionnal. What you guys are saying, be it about the characters or anything else, is very real.
So when someone repetitively dehumanize a character in order to attack them, I consider this person to be toxic and problematic.
I know you don't understand that because you brain is wired to ignore the political in every bits of society, but its time to wake the F. up. Rules are not godly bibles. They are here because someone thought they can be relevant. If they are not, there is NO NEED for those rules.
My point is that EVERY STORIES ARE POLITICAL especially One Piece, which means that you can't be a serious and safe One Piece forum without leaving space for the political discussions about the story to emerge.
What you will create instead, is a place were conflict are buried and were people are agressive and toxic to eachothers.
By following this rule, you create a place of negativity, incapable of questionning itself.
Poor them
No. Its not the fault of the posters or right winger if I'm gone from this thread, its simply because a moderator thought that following the rule was more important than doing the right thing.
Nothing more.
Oh.. you cheeky tanuki, you know full well that you are lying here
In reality this "left space" (that was intended to be indeed a safe space for leftists) was created around 6 month year PRIOR my threadban from the Nakama thread hehehe, and between that I changed my tactics and opinions about politics on this forum at least twice. In fact at the time, I was not so eager to let politic shine everywhere on this forum as I didn't really understand myself the importance of doing that.
I knew talking about certain topic was important but I was not as aware of the political as I'm now.
Yes, and ?
Do you need to be reminded of the history of racism to understand that racism is bad ?
Rightists then. Gotcha
And the 1914 pages of this thread just proves how much people are not interested in politic on this forum.
Gotcha
But lets assume that is the case (which is not as if that was the case, we wouldn't be talking about One Piece on this forum) : Those who don't care about oppression when there is oppression are part of the problem. This is a position of priviledge and ignorance. Ergo not a position to be really proud of.
Let's say that slavery is about to be restaured. Well in that case, those saying "I don't care about politic" would simply be deepsh*ts. We are lucky, slavery is not back.. but we have transphobia, fascism rising, autoritarian capitalism, far right bigotry and so on...
So you are lucky that I'm patient with apolitical mate.
Also being moderate does not means you don't care about politics, its just means that you are incapable of owning your own political values.
On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. But I can't ask a apolitical to understand that.
Each crewmates in One Piece is a paragon of a set of value. For Usopp its pride and courage, for Luffy its the importance of freedom, for Nami its the importance of trust, for Zoro its the importance of Honor etc. Which means that each time we have a debate about a strawhat we also have a debate about values that should be put in the strawhat crew.
Sadly, since you guys were too focused in discussing the surface of the characters, you completely missed that point. (which is another reason why most of you don't understand what really makes a strawhat to begin with).
But.. what happens when you put potential strawhats in conflict with each others ? Well, this:
You are completely missing it, but the Nakama thread didn't start to be political because of me. It was ALWAYS political. And that's one of the reason why the Yamato / Carrot conflict created such debate and so many pages.
Behind Yamato VS Carrot, its was a political war. First on the value of the character : Carrot relies on this importance of wonder and growth while Yamato relies also on the importance of growth but also the importance of responsibility. Second on the value of the debaters : Yamato fan were mostly toxic toward Carrot and their fan but also were the representant of what they thought was the importance of having a strong, virilistic and lore related character to join the crew while Carrot fan were MOSTLY the opposite, they liked Carrot because of her story, they didn't necessaraly hated Yamato because of her personnality, some also because she was a furry and not at all because of her strenght.
This double opposition created a clash, on the legitimacy of the characters to join the crew and (when I arrived) on the legitimacy of the debater to have a serious conversation.
This was a CLASSICAL political debate.
What I did was simply explaining why we needed to understand that in order to have a good debate. You guys refused to listen, so I pushed the limits and I showed why the simple way a reader can see a character (in this case Carrot being an "animal" for some) was in fact the revelator of a political value burried deep (systemic racism) that was only freed because the character is "fictionnal".
But what you guys don't realize, is that only the story is fictionnal. What you guys are saying, be it about the characters or anything else, is very real.
So when someone repetitively dehumanize a character in order to attack them, I consider this person to be toxic and problematic.
I know you don't understand that because you brain is wired to ignore the political in every bits of society, but its time to wake the F. up. Rules are not godly bibles. They are here because someone thought they can be relevant. If they are not, there is NO NEED for those rules.
My point is that EVERY STORIES ARE POLITICAL especially One Piece, which means that you can't be a serious and safe One Piece forum without leaving space for the political discussions about the story to emerge.
What you will create instead, is a place were conflict are buried and were people are agressive and toxic to eachothers.
By following this rule, you create a place of negativity, incapable of questionning itself.
Poor them
No. Its not the fault of the posters or right winger if I'm gone from this thread, its simply because a moderator thought that following the rule was more important than doing the right thing.
Nothing more.
Oh.. you cheeky tanuki, you know full well that you are lying here
In reality this "left space" (that was intended to be indeed a safe space for leftists) was created around 6 month year PRIOR my threadban from the Nakama thread hehehe, and between that I changed my tactics and opinions about politics on this forum at least twice. In fact at the time, I was not so eager to let politic shine everywhere on this forum as I didn't really understand myself the importance of doing that.
I knew talking about certain topic was important but I was not as aware of the political as I'm now.
Yes, and ?
Do you need to be reminded of the history of racism to understand that racism is bad ?
Last edited:
I'm just replying to you mate and you are again trying to twist reality with your wording lol, damn you never stop
Rightists then. Gotcha
And the 1914 pages of this thread just proves how much people are not interested in politic on this forum.
Gotcha
But lets assume that is the case (which is not as if that was the case, we wouldn't be talking about One Piece on this forum) : Those who don't care about oppression when there is oppression are part of the problem. This is a position of priviledge and ignorance. Ergo not a position to be really proud of.
Let's say that slavery is about to be restaured. Well in that case, those saying "I don't care about politic" would simply be deepsh*ts. We are lucky, slavery is not back.. but we have transphobia, fascism rising, autoritarian capitalism, far right bigotry and so on...
So you are lucky that I'm patient with apolitical mate.
Also being moderate does not means you don't care about politics, its just means that you are incapable of owning your own political values.
On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. But I can't ask a apolitical to understand that.
Each crewmates in One Piece is a paragon of a set of value. For Usopp its pride and courage, for Luffy its the importance of freedom, for Nami its the importance of trust, for Zoro its the importance of Honor etc. Which means that each time we have a debate about a strawhat we also have a debate about values that should be put in the strawhat crew.
Sadly, since you guys were too focused in discussing the surface of the characters, you completely missed that point. (which is another reason why most of you don't understand what really makes a strawhat to begin with).
But.. what happens when you put potential strawhats in conflict with each others ? Well, this:
You are completely missing it, but the Nakama thread didn't start to be political because of me. It was ALWAYS political. And that's one of the reason why the Yamato / Carrot conflict created such debate and so many pages.
Behind Yamato VS Carrot, its was a political war. First on the value of the character : Carrot relies on this importance of wonder and growth while Yamato relies also on the importance of growth but also the importance of responsibility. Second on the value of the debaters : Yamato fan were mostly toxic toward Carrot and their fan but also were the representant of what they thought was the importance of having a strong, virilistic and lore related character to join the crew while Carrot fan were MOSTLY the opposite, they liked Carrot because of her story, they didn't necessaraly hated Yamato because of her personnality, some also because she was a furry and not at all because of her strenght.
This double opposition created a clash, on the legitimacy of the characters to join the crew and (when I arrived) on the legitimacy of the debater to have a serious conversation.
This was a CLASSICAL political debate.
What I did was simply explaining why we needed to understand that in order to have a good debate. You guys refused to listen, so I pushed the limits and I showed why the simple way a reader can see a character (in this case Carrot being an "animal" for some) was in fact the revelator of a political value burried deep (systemic racism) that was only freed because the character is "fictionnal".
But what you guys don't realize, is that only the story is fictionnal. What you guys are saying, be it about the characters or anything else, is very real.
So when someone repetitively dehumanize a character in order to attack them, I consider this person to be toxic and problematic.
I know you don't understand that because you brain is wired to ignore the political in every bits of society, but its time to wake the F. up. Rules are not godly bibles. They are here because someone thought they can be relevant. If they are not, there is NO NEED for those rules.
My point is that EVERY STORIES ARE POLITICAL especially One Piece, which means that you can't be a serious and safe One Piece forum without leaving space for the political discussions about the story to emerge.
What you will create instead, is a place were conflict are buried and were people are agressive and toxic to eachothers.
By following this rule, you create a place of negativity, incapable of questionning itself.
Poor them
No. Its not the fault of the posters or right winger if I'm gone from this thread, its simply because a moderator thought that following the rule was more important than doing the right thing.
Nothing more.
Oh.. you cheeky tanuki, you know full well that you are lying here
In reality this "left space" (that was intended to be indeed a safe space for leftists) was created around 6 month year PRIOR my threadban from the Nakama thread hehehe, and between that I changed my tactics and opinions about politics on this forum at least twice. In fact at the time, I was not so eager to let politic shine everywhere on this forum as I didn't really understand myself the importance of doing that.
I knew talking about certain topic was important but I was not as aware of the political as I'm now.
Yes, and ?
Do you need to be reminded of the history of racism to understand that racism is bad ?
Rightists then. Gotcha
And the 1914 pages of this thread just proves how much people are not interested in politic on this forum.
Gotcha
But lets assume that is the case (which is not as if that was the case, we wouldn't be talking about One Piece on this forum) : Those who don't care about oppression when there is oppression are part of the problem. This is a position of priviledge and ignorance. Ergo not a position to be really proud of.
Let's say that slavery is about to be restaured. Well in that case, those saying "I don't care about politic" would simply be deepsh*ts. We are lucky, slavery is not back.. but we have transphobia, fascism rising, autoritarian capitalism, far right bigotry and so on...
So you are lucky that I'm patient with apolitical mate.
Also being moderate does not means you don't care about politics, its just means that you are incapable of owning your own political values.
On the contrary, it has everything to do with it. But I can't ask a apolitical to understand that.
Each crewmates in One Piece is a paragon of a set of value. For Usopp its pride and courage, for Luffy its the importance of freedom, for Nami its the importance of trust, for Zoro its the importance of Honor etc. Which means that each time we have a debate about a strawhat we also have a debate about values that should be put in the strawhat crew.
Sadly, since you guys were too focused in discussing the surface of the characters, you completely missed that point. (which is another reason why most of you don't understand what really makes a strawhat to begin with).
But.. what happens when you put potential strawhats in conflict with each others ? Well, this:
You are completely missing it, but the Nakama thread didn't start to be political because of me. It was ALWAYS political. And that's one of the reason why the Yamato / Carrot conflict created such debate and so many pages.
Behind Yamato VS Carrot, its was a political war. First on the value of the character : Carrot relies on this importance of wonder and growth while Yamato relies also on the importance of growth but also the importance of responsibility. Second on the value of the debaters : Yamato fan were mostly toxic toward Carrot and their fan but also were the representant of what they thought was the importance of having a strong, virilistic and lore related character to join the crew while Carrot fan were MOSTLY the opposite, they liked Carrot because of her story, they didn't necessaraly hated Yamato because of her personnality, some also because she was a furry and not at all because of her strenght.
This double opposition created a clash, on the legitimacy of the characters to join the crew and (when I arrived) on the legitimacy of the debater to have a serious conversation.
This was a CLASSICAL political debate.
What I did was simply explaining why we needed to understand that in order to have a good debate. You guys refused to listen, so I pushed the limits and I showed why the simple way a reader can see a character (in this case Carrot being an "animal" for some) was in fact the revelator of a political value burried deep (systemic racism) that was only freed because the character is "fictionnal".
But what you guys don't realize, is that only the story is fictionnal. What you guys are saying, be it about the characters or anything else, is very real.
So when someone repetitively dehumanize a character in order to attack them, I consider this person to be toxic and problematic.
I know you don't understand that because you brain is wired to ignore the political in every bits of society, but its time to wake the F. up. Rules are not godly bibles. They are here because someone thought they can be relevant. If they are not, there is NO NEED for those rules.
My point is that EVERY STORIES ARE POLITICAL especially One Piece, which means that you can't be a serious and safe One Piece forum without leaving space for the political discussions about the story to emerge.
What you will create instead, is a place were conflict are buried and were people are agressive and toxic to eachothers.
By following this rule, you create a place of negativity, incapable of questionning itself.
Poor them
No. Its not the fault of the posters or right winger if I'm gone from this thread, its simply because a moderator thought that following the rule was more important than doing the right thing.
Nothing more.
Oh.. you cheeky tanuki, you know full well that you are lying here
In reality this "left space" (that was intended to be indeed a safe space for leftists) was created around 6 month year PRIOR my threadban from the Nakama thread hehehe, and between that I changed my tactics and opinions about politics on this forum at least twice. In fact at the time, I was not so eager to let politic shine everywhere on this forum as I didn't really understand myself the importance of doing that.
I knew talking about certain topic was important but I was not as aware of the political as I'm now.
Yes, and ?
Do you need to be reminded of the history of racism to understand that racism is bad ?
Dude, you're either the best troll in the history of this forum or you seriously need some therapy ASAP. You shouldn't be arguing with these people in the first place. Go see a professional instead of arguing with Zolo of all people. If you seriously can't find the motivation to do the things you want, then you won't find the solution to those problems by grandstanding to a bunch of retards like us.