Odeon's IntensitySquared

[Al Swearegen]

There was a time in this little forum that this place was like the Wild West. A few of the older members may remember. You joined knowing you were stepping into the lion's den. It was not for everyone. If you had a bit of grit and could handle different opinions and were prepared to back yourself and fight back at a moments notice, you were well suited.

This encapsulated the spirit of this place.

You have found INTENSITY², the autistic spectrum site everyone loves to hate.

We stand for freedom of expression, combative debate, and the generation of ideas. There are no boundaries here over what may be said, save for one rule - be prepared to back up your words. Or face the wrath of the community.

As such this site is not suitable for children. If you are under 18 please come back when you aren't any more.

If you are over 18 and have the bottle for it,

ENTER INTENSITY² HERE.

We knew there were mod tools and an admin panel, but it rarely was used and when it was it was for the worst of the worst. Rabbit from Hell going ballistic was an example and of course those wanting to push the boundaries of the rules to get the place shut down. Spambots naturally were taken care of but the rough and tumble of members were left to their own resources.

Admins were equally bound to the combative environment of IntensitySquared. They were argued with and called out and fought on a fair and even playing field and were respected (and often feared) for doing so.

Odeon however over the years has slowly eroded this ethos and is treating this site as NOT a bastion of free speech but rather as a place where his word is law and he is above dispute or the need to defend himself. He keeps the hypocritical two sets of ledgers, one by which he sets a standard to which he may attack others, and the other which limits the ability of others to similarly attack him.

It has been a long time in the works.

Several years ago there was a user called Calandale. Candale was the first person most of us newbies got to know. He was a professional post whore. He would post 100 posts any given day.  He would seemingly be on 24/7 and keep up multiple conversations over multiple threads. He talked a HELL of a lot of crap and could be quite annoying. Milla was almost as hardcore in posting and they together were unbelievable.

After multiple annoying run ins with Calandale, Cal was blabberised by Odeon. Things had been coming to a head for ages and it was not as though we were not expecting a reaction or whatever. A number of us expressed a mixture of disappointment and disbelief.
Cal was annoying as Hell sometimes and his spamming was uncontainable. It was like oxygen to him. However we had never expected the Blabberiser would or should be used in such a way.

Cal did not stick around long term and left to start Aspiechaos with Milla. Yeah he has come back a few times but it was never the same since then.

Odeon owned up to having used it as a "last resort"and expressed that he did not know what else to do. With the kind of "Oh well what is done is done and this was a random situation we can learn from" type sentiment, those that were against the using the blabberiser on Cal got on with things and those that thought it was the right occasion to use it did not question it. So the freedom of speech thing was still happening and the boundaries were not changed by this. It was an anomaly.

However a few years later a trollish member I quite like (Vodzy) one day insult Odeon's wife or daughter and suddenly was blabberised (or sinbinned). It again had a few of us asking why? I had been at one point accused of being an incestuous pedophile, Phlexor and others had had their family members insulted, no censoring to their attackers.

Odeon said that was because he was Admin and that was his exception he would make. No attacking his family members or the Admin panel would be used.

The slow creeping infringement of censoring free speech and free expression and the need to back yourself had begun. But many kind of begrudgingly accepted that whilst not even or fair, Vodzy was being an arsehole.

Fast forward to Penty and Richard. Richard was spamming photos of his dick and him wanking and the like around the forum. Penty, pissed off with Richard, spammed thread after thread and was censored (Blabberised).

I naturally took exception at it and we had our first call out.
Again Odeon expressed that give the same situation he may not do the same to Penty .....but what is done is done, right?

Two very interesting and applicable aspects of Odeon's portrayal of the free expression and its importance to IntensitySquared.

Hell no. Use whatever arguments you like. In fact you could say "My board, my rules, my decisions. Piss off Les"

Never crossed my mind. I'm trying to explain my views and my actions, not shove them down your throat.

Nobody is sinbinned or blabberized because s/he is aiming for a moral high ground, real or perceived.

Compare these two with his latest and you will see how far we have come

Right now you are pissing me off by flooding the board with Hillary threads and calling me a rapist. Stop or learn to live with the problems.

&

Or to put it in other words: you don't get to call the admin a rapist without a reaction. Though the problems you are facing right now are fairly minor.

So there was inconsistency but again a bit of introspection.

So now Odeon is encroaching a little further.

Odeon insinuated himself into my and Zegh's fight. It started with Zegh saying some nasty shit to me that would (as shown in the case of Vodzy) have got him censored. He took Zegh's side and accused me of being intellectually dishonest.
I was annoyed and surprised. I naturally called him on it and gave him opportunity to clarify himself and make a case for it (back himself) or step away from it and agree that it had no basis. Odeon had other ideas. In the face of the "back yourself" culture he did everything BUT back himself. He made more and more charges of other behaviour (and subsequently disavowed most of those positions), he implored me to stop perusing it, he attacked positions I did not hold and tried to persuade me to adopt them, he tried to condescend to me, he redefined words to try to pad up his claims, he even threatened the friendship over it if I did not back off.

What he did NOT do was back himself.

So things were not resolved. He asked ME what I hoped to "get out of things" and could not appreciate that HE was the one who prodded me for the reaction that he was getting. If his plan was for a reaction (and he admitted to that much) then he ought to have a plan to deal with the results of said reaction. Lost on him.

So nothing resolved, naturally. He was making claims he could not back and expected somewhat strangely that "I" would back away from them.

Later I agree in principle with something Trump said and he said I was a Trump supporter and I support all of his ideas, I must know what the strategic plan was for this freshly form idea of someone else's and must be tied to whatever that strategic plan is, by virtue of the fact that I agreed in principle with one idea.

Of course it was irrational and stupid in the extreme. But he was getting more and more animated.

I explained the idea of temporarily freezing the immigration of Muslims into the US seemed okay. Certainly I saw the reasoning as to why there was concerns and if they wanted to fix the system and suspend immigration temporarily whilst they could not adequately identify the people they let into the country, it sounded reasonable to me. In Australia we have Detention Centres for that. It gives us time to properly check who we are letting into the country. Exactly what they are trying to do.

What exactly was the threat? Radical Muslim extremists found in Muslim immigrant and refugee communities wishing to immigrate. So Odeon calls me a bigot.

However again, he fails to make a case, though asked to repeatedly. How am I a bigot and who am I bigoted towards? I have no issue with Muslims. Most are fine people and when I say most I mean most. Moderate Muslims are a boon to any country they go to. If they are wishing to make a country their home, that s no bad thing. I DO have a REAL issue with Radical Muslim Extremists and here is where I have no issue in saying I really dislike them. This is not what Odeon means when he says I am a bigot though. He wants me to be intolerant and dislike All Muslims and I simply do not and nor have I been intolerant or bigoted to Muslims in general (only Radical Muslim Extremists).

So Odeon has no way of backing his position of me being a bigot. It is simply an emotional kneejerk and he doubles down and lies and baits and switches rather than backs himself, because he can't back himself and it becomes an argument about his feelings (which is not an argument I am interested in).

I do not care if Odeon "feels" like I am a bigot, if he makes the claim on I2, he should back it. But he can't. So he refuses to do that and keeps calling me a bigot, I finally respond and start calling him a "rapist. Tit for tat.

Now what does he do? Did I insult his family? Did I endanger the site? No. I upset him despite his efforts to say that I am "eating out of his hand and he likes it". That is what we call the puffery of a control freak's ego. He did NOT like it and he went to his last two bastions Admin panel to censor me and ego boosting tough guy threats.

Think about this: What used to be a last resort, reserved for the very worst of the worst that posed a terrible danger, has now become what he uses to win arguments. That is it. He calls me a bigot, I call him a rapist back and he censors. Disagree with Odeon and be prepared that the next inroads into the freedom of expression will be banning people he disagrees with or does not like.

Ironically I only started posting Trump posts because he both kept accusing me of being a Trump supporter and because of the eating out of the hand comment. I thought to myself if I DID post these that I would probably have him censor me within one week. It took two days.

Odeon does not see cause and effect. Anyone who knows me at all knows I am reactive and that I am stubborn, arrogant, tenacious and not the type of person to back down. Odeon creates a situation and doubles down and expects he can then dictate the terms of resolution? What did the rapist say? I had to "Stop or learn to live with the problems."

Nope, he can deal with his own damn issues. If he prods me for a reaction, he will get one. If he doesn't like it, I don't care. If he thinks I will pander to him he is delusional.

Odeon sees I2 as his own little dictatorial fiefdom. Be nice to him....or else. Its a mile from where he , me and everyone on here was years ago

[odeon]

Whatever problems you are facing in real life, Al, deal with them. You were not like this a year ago, let alone in 2010. You were able to accept differing opinions, including those where you were called things, without going off the deep end. But now? Seriously, mate? Calling me a rapist? You have issues and you need to deal with them, whatever they are.

I'm not going to be drawn into yet another callout where you won't accept that not everyone agrees with you. I'm not going to discuss your bizarre notions of reality, and I'm certainly no longer going to treat you as if you had an actual point to make. I am going to treat you as a rather verbose troll until I spot a change. You know, where you actually acknowledge someone else's view, where you are prepared to accept that yours is not the only point of view there is.

[Al Swearegen]

Whatever problems you are facing in real life, Al, deal with them. You were not like this a year ago, let alone in 2010. You were able to accept differing opinions, including those where you were called things, without going off the deep end. But now? Seriously, mate? Calling me a rapist? You have issues and you need to deal with them, whatever they are.

I'm not going to be drawn into yet another callout where you won't accept that not everyone agrees with you. I'm not going to discuss your bizarre notions of reality, and I'm certainly no longer going to treat you as if you had an actual point to make. I am going to treat you as a rather verbose troll until I spot a change. You know, where you actually acknowledge someone else's view, where you are prepared to accept that yours is not the only point of view there is.

Nice job of spindoctoring.

Here is the reality.
* You try insulting me by calling me a bigot
* I respond by calling you a rapist
* You go to the Admin tools to censor and "punish" me
* I call you on it and your hypocrisy
* You try inferring I have issues and you are justified and virtuous.

Some may buy it. Me? Well no, don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.

I handle differing opinion fine. If you want to insult me for no good reason and without retraction and/or apology, I will not step away (and I'm not mentally ill or have problem for not. Fuck you very much) Especially not here. Here we back ourselves.

You've been doing a lot of lying, misrepresentation, bait and switch, Strawman fallacies, evasion and simply restating bad claims.

You know I can agree to disagree. You have even been on the receiving end of that. But let's be real. You stuck your nose in to a fight that had nothing to do with you, which started with Zegh saying the kind of things to me that you would have censored him if he said them to you, you spoiled for a reaction,  and I finally called you out. You repeated a ridiculous claim and many more, before dropping all but your intellectual dishonesty claim. You never backed it but you did everything but, including redefining words to fit your narrative.

You did not back yourself you hedged around and misrepresented things. You darted between positions in a way reminiscent of Calandale . As if you were trying to try out different positions to see which worked best.

Now again with your recent claims of bigotry, again, you have not backed yourself. Again you lie, bait and switch, Strawman and misrepresent me but you do not back yourself. Big claims deserve more. Otherwise someone like me simply insults you back.

I always said your site so do what you want, and you always pretended to be fair and evenhanded. I still say do what you want. But if you think I will change, or cop to unwarranted insults, or stop challenging you if I deem it necessary,  you are crazy.

[odeon]

Still no. I backed up what I said. I also took back what you showed was less than well considered. However, I think I am right in calling you intellectually dishonest in regards to Zegh and showed you why. The fact that you don't agree is understandable but irrelevant. We have opposing views on this and if you actually could agree to disagree rather than starting multiple callouts, we wouldn't be here now.

You also think it is a good idea to temporarily ban Muslim immigration, which is bigoted as hell and I am certainly not alone i thinking so. Hence "bigot".

You can now either agree to disagree and stop all this, at which point I will also stop, or you can continue to lie and call me names, and this will continue. Here, though, you will be at a considerable disadvantage. There is no moral high ground for you, nor an admin panel, and you aren't that good a troll.

Your choice.

[Al Swearegen]

Still no. I backed up what I said. I also took back what you showed was less than well considered. However, I think I am right in calling you intellectually dishonest in regards to Zegh and showed you why. The fact that you don't agree is understandable but irrelevant. We have opposing views on this and if you actually could agree to disagree rather than starting multiple callouts, we wouldn't be here now.

You also think it is a good idea to temporarily ban Muslim immigration, which is bigoted as hell and I am certainly not alone i thinking so. Hence "bigot".

You can now either agree to disagree and stop all this, at which point I will also stop, or you can continue to lie and call me names, and this will continue. Here, though, you will be at a considerable disadvantage. There is no moral high ground for you, nor an admin panel, and you aren't that good a troll.

Your choice.

No it was all "less considered". It was not that you did not back your case as you did not make it to begin with. Later conversations with Jack showed what I was saying.

You were being very selective,  very liberal with your interpretations and stretching to try to make a premise to defend. You ultimately failed at producing a position for me to defend.

No, the difference between that and your first callous with me is that there was substance regardless of whether I agreed or not. You came at me with a value based accusations but then offered me nothing by way of reasoning to back it. What annoyed me at the time was your inability to reason it. There was no good reason for your accusation. An accusation without reason.

Nope temporarily banning Muslim immigration is entirely up to US how they manage their borders.  As for Muslims being affected specifically,  unfortunate but not necessarily bigoted.

I mentioned before that it is merely, when looked at rationally, a matter of competing rights in which someone loses out because not everyone can win. That is not bigotry, it is just unfortunate.  For example if I was to state that in the case of abortion there are competing rights, those of the Mother, those of the child and those of the Father, the Mother's rights get top priority and THAT is not bigotry, it is merely a practical and rational consideration.  The same competing right quandary exists in the concept of temporarily freeze Muslim immigration until the vetting systems in place are improved.

Now Hyke had it right Australia and Europe have very different standards when it comes to border security and enforcement so cultural we value this differently. So I am happy to agree to disagree as to the importance of a country to apply strict border security always. But you wanted to insult me. YOU could have agreed to disagree but you chose to insult me. The issue was never about being intolerant to Muslim but whether US has a right to enforce their border security against what they see as a perceived threat
 I come from a country with strong border protection and so I am inclined to support this.

No Odeon, no it is bigotry, you support bigotry, you are a bigot. I never supported bigotry and never will. I am not a bigot and you lie and insult me when you do. If you can't back your claim as to who I am intolerant to (and you can't)  then no, I still fail to see why you would imagine I would meekly accept you calling me a bigot.

It would be really really stupid to think that wouldn't it Odeon. I gave you time to make a case, and you didn't. So now I am simply returning the favour of the insult you bestowed to me. I don't care if you like it or not. You choose to insult me, and it is a choice then you would be a moron not to expect to be insulted  back. Yet you are struggling with this concept.

I am not trolling and nor do I give a shit about your Admin panel or threat of censor. I do not care for you laying down the law. Where do you imagine that leaves you?

[odeon]

I realise you'd like it not to be bigoted, but it is. As for countries regulating their immigration policies, whatever made you think that just because it's a *country* it wouldn't be bigoted?

There was this other country that blamed pretty much everything on an ethnic group. I seem to remember that it took them only a few years to go from simple finger-pointing to much more serious stuff. It's a slippery slope and nobody likes to be called a bigot.

So where does that leave *you*?

Firmly in the gutter.

[Al Swearegen]

I realise you'd like it not to be bigoted, but it is. As for countries regulating their immigration policies, whatever made you think that just because it's a *country* it wouldn't be bigoted?

There was this other country that blamed pretty much everything on an ethnic group. I seem to remember that it took them only a few years to go from simple finger-pointing to much more serious stuff. It's a slippery slope and nobody likes to be called a bigot.

So where does that leave *you*?

Firmly in the gutter.

Oh right I get it. It I have seen this type of thinking before. That is right, Jon Stewart:



"If you subscribe to an idea, then you also  subscribe to that idea's ideology and to every possible consequence that, that ideology remotely implies, when you carry it to absurd extremes".

If a country has border security to protect it its citizens, fauna and flora from external threats then it has the ability to identify and classify any threat posed and minimise or isolate or extinguish that threat before it becomes a danger to the country. HOWEVER IF by doing so they look at protecting the citizens, fauna and flora from external threats due to immigration then having the ability to identify and classify any threat posed and minimise or isolate or extinguish that threat before it becomes a danger to the country becomes bigoted. Not only does it become bigoted but it becomes Fascism. If it is now Fascism, then it is the beginnings of the Third Reich. The people protecting the border are essentially Nazis and the ethnic populations are now going to be murdered. The leader of that country now literally becomes the incarnation of Hitler.

Congratulations Odeon. You hit Glenn Beck level idiocy.

Now if you can step down off your moral high horse and Nazi Fantasies, it is clear one does not imply the other even remotely. So let's drop that bullshit.

Who am I bigoted against? It is a simple question. Who am I bigoted against and how?

[Yuri Bezmenov]

Guest
10:22:03 PM
Printing the topic "Odeon's IntensitySquared".

[odeon]