1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightLiberal or not Red Night, you *are* a fascist. You are also trying to push your own agenda onto these forums using manipulation and propaganda, like all fascists.
You know what happens when you assume?
To your credit Ark, I think a lot of people made the same assumption. Small minded people like Rook Rake who were unable to look at the substance of the message and instead immediatley labeled it and me a fascist.
I'm actually quite liberal.
Note to the RHP community. Here are basic propaganda techniques used regularly by Red Night.
1) Repetition. If people hear the same thing over and over, whether they initially believe it or not, it starts to take hold in their brain unless they explicitly fight it. For example, if at work you casually mention, every chance you get that "Mary has been doing a great job" (whether there is evidence or not) people will believe it and you'll soon be hearing it from others. For a more powerful message say "I hear Mary has been doing a great job". Red Night haunts these forums, occassionally contributing, but also inserting his little messages about what he approves of, and doesn't. Repeating something does not make it any more true.
2) Exaggerating the weight of your opinion. On these forums, we all only speak for ourselves. I speak for myself, no one else. Red Night speaks for himself, no one else. But he doesn't want you to believe this - so he has invented his so-called "majority". The people who support Red Night are not a majority at RHP, or on these forums. Besides, he does not speak for people just because they agree with him on some topics. By always tossing in statements like "the majority believes" and "our movement is growing larger" he (via repetition) wants to sway your subconscious that he does speak with more weight.
3) Red Night is no better, or worse than the rest of us. He is equally annoying, vengeful, spiteful, and closed-minded. He acts the same, pretty much, as everyone else here. But, he tucks little "I love everyone" messages here and there. It reminds me of the stupid movie "Mars Attacks", where the martians are announcing "Do not be afraid, we come in peace" while shooting down every human in sight.
4) Use of loose logic and non sequiturs. Think of every local school budget election, where the proposed increased school budget is on the ballet. Invariably some politician comes out in favor of the budget increase, and someone against it. Often, the person in favor uses the technique of claiming anyone who is against the budget increase "hates children". Red Night is doing this all the time. He takes a concept, like sexual exploitation of minors which most people oppose, then he labels some behavior as sexual exploitation, and using techniques #1 and #2 above drums up support. The fact is that the world is full of difficult choices, and gray areas. There are very few clear cut examples of good and evil. Red Night is offended by things I am not, fine. Asssuming everyone draws the same conclusion from the same facts is not fine.
5) Confusing emotion with facts. Most moral issues are emotional. Because people feel strongly, they believe that the more strong their feel, the more "true" their belief. This is simply not the case. Believing strongly has the result of believing strongly - that's it. So, if Red Night believes really strongly that children are being exploited here, it does not make it true. I actually have a teenager, so I don't really give a crap what Red Night feels strongly about.
I, for one (see I'm speaking for only me), am not going to put up with this "moral" spamming vendetta.
- Joined
- 05 Oct 05
- Moves
- 63425
Originally posted by RookRAKUh - huh. What a lofty post.
1) Repetition [of a suggestion]. If people hear the same thing over and over, whether they initially believe it or not, it starts to take hold in their brain unless they explicitly fight it. For example, if online you casually mention, every chance you get that "SJ May be a man" (whether there is evidence or not) people will believe it and you'll soon be hearing it from others.
[I was apparently deleted the first time I responded. I'm sure you caught my initial thoughts.]
Originally posted by RookRAKVery well spoken and well organized retort. I appreciate the fact that you you backed off on earlier statements calling me a stalker.
Liberal or not Red Night, you *are* a fascist. You are also trying to push your own agenda onto these forums using manipulation and propaganda, like all fascists.
Note to the RHP community. Here are basic propaganda techniques used regularly by Red Night.
1) Repetition. If people hear the same thing over and over, whether they initially believe it or n ...[text shortened]... nly me), am not going to put up with this "moral" spamming vendetta.
But, what you've done here is largely the same thing you accuse me of doing.
1. Repetition. Call me a fascist and a spammer.
2. Exagerating the weight. Implying that no one agrees with the statement that "Adults shouldn't engage in sexually explict converstaions with minors on the interernet."
3. I'm "no better or worse," but somehow I'm like evil martians attacking the earth. (Put this one under exageration, as well.)
4. Loose logic? I truly appreciate the fact that you didn't make any wild personal attacks here beyond calling me a fascist. But, in previous posts you've called me a stalker. I believe that is exactly the kind of wild personal attack that is often made in political elections.
5. Confusing emotion with facts. I didn't say children were expoited here. I said, "Reasonable adults should not engage in sexually explicit conversations with minors on the internet."
I, for one, may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Originally posted by Red NightRed, you're simply a self-obsessed pain in the derriere with an excess of moral righteousnes 😞
... I for one, may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Turn off your TV 😕 Get a real life 🙄 Leave this thread to Gatecrasher's RHP Faces 😉
Where it would appear that I reign supreme amongst persons of the male persuasion on RHP 😏
Defend that to the death, you mindless twit. 😴 Stop parroting Jimmy Swaggart, Polly!!!
Originally posted by AikoGatecrasher: Here are the new updates for RHP Faces.
Can someone give me a summary of the last 25 pages?
Palynka: SJ is a bit fat.
SJ: Palynka is a stupid gay idiot.
Red Night: Love your neighbour, but not too much if he's a kid.
Ark: I'm not a child.
Remora: I'm not a child.
Basically, that's it as far as I remember. Feel free to add, anyone.
Originally posted by PalynkaPalynka: I don't like arks hair.
Gatecrasher: Here are the new updates for RHP Faces.
Palynka: SJ is a bit fat.
SJ: Palynka is a stupid gay idiot.
Red Night: Love your neighbour, but not too much if he's a kid.
Ark: I'm not a child.
Remora: I'm not a child.
Basically, that's it as far as I remember. Feel free to add, anyone.
2 edits
Originally posted by Red NightI would say you are not reading, but I think you are reading just fine and choosing to interpret to suit your agenda.
Very well spoken and well organized retort. I appreciate the fact that you you backed off on earlier statements calling me a stalker.
But, what you've done here is largely the same thing you accuse me of doing.
1. Repetition. Call me a fascist and a spammer.
2. Exagerating the weight. Implying that no one agrees with the statement that "Adult y not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
I have not backed off on the stalker issue. Look it it this way: if, in real life I see a young girl on my street that I think is involved with an adult, I might a) inform her parents, and/or b) inform the police. Then, my duty is done and I leave it alone. If instead I follow her to school every day, and watch her sleep every night through her bedroom window to "protect" her, then I am a stalker. You have voiced your disapproval numerous times, everybody heard you. It is time to leave it alone.
Even I agree that "Reasonable adults should not engage in sexually explicit conversations with minors on the internet". The difficulty is that this issue, like others, is not simple. What is explicit? What is inapproriate? Has Russ hired you as the "Morals Mod"? This site, and forum were just fine (well, not fine because all internet forums are screwed up) before you got here. People mostly had fun, no crimes were being committed, no children were being hurt. So you have "saved" zero people, but annoyed more than zero. Net effect being we would be better off if you hadn't showed up, or if you started behaving like a normal person.
Originally posted by Red NightAttribute your quotes to those that penned them.
Very well spoken and well organized retort. I appreciate the fact that you you backed off on earlier statements calling me a stalker.
But, what you've done here is largely the same thing you accuse me of doing.
1. Repetition. Call me a fascist and a spammer.
2. Exagerating the weight. Implying that no one agrees with the statement that "Adult ...[text shortened]... y not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.