Garnet

WAR ROOM (TRIGGER WARNING. EXPLICIT LANGUAGE)

227 posts in this topic

Quote

 I don't have mental illness, dummy. They've harassed me for months.  You look like you're just trying to demonize me.

If that's true, prove it. Get a proper assessment and bring authentic certified medical documentation or something like that that states "there is no sign of Adam having any mental disorders." Otherwise as far as anyone's concerned you're talking bias out of your ass in arrogance or vanity because even you wouldn't know unless it's been officially confirmed by a psychological practitioner if you want to be able to say it as a certifiable statement and not just your word for it. If you want people to trust your word and have an undeniable opportunity to invaldidate any arguements about your mental health, it's basically your only option for certainty. And no, I don't care about personal information like where you live or all that so that's not what I'm asking. Blank it out if you need to. Hell, even if Garnet or another mod or admin sees it privately and deletes it, I'll take their word for it. Just a positive or negative is sufficient

It's easy to ignore, dismiss and deny the flaws in yourself when you're distracted by those of others.

Edited by Inquisitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Inquisitor said:
Quote

I don't have mental illness, dummy. They've harassed me for months.  You look like you're just trying to demonize me.

If that's true, prove it. Get a proper assessment and bring authentic certified medical documentation or something like that that states "there is no sign of Adam having any mental disorders." Otherwise as far as anyone's concerned you're talking bias out of your ass in arrogance or vanity because even you wouldn't know unless it's been officially confirmed by a psychological practitioner if you want to be able to say it as a certifiable statement and not jus.......

Dude. Calm the fuck down. Ok? I get angry sometimes too. We all get pissed off after a while, but you need to cool the curcuits a bit. I don't need to do that.

There is nothing cognitively wrong with my brain or how it works. My brain works fine as far as anyone here should be concerned.

You're a fraud.

 

If I say something rude to the audience, it's because I'm sick and tired and an asshole sometimes. I tend to isolate myself from people I care about. My uncle is the same way. If anything, that's kinda crazy. However, nothing about me specifically is impared, nor makes your issues a non-issue. Understand? 

I know you want to paint that picture. Sadly, some will believe it. Perhaps I played a role and made mistakes.

 

 

 

@Garnet What does the panel say? Are you going to allow this concept-contorting psychologically manipulative character to just float around to tell people whatever he wants? Who is responsible? 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MistaRender said:

I have never said anything, not a single thing, deragatory or insulting about another race... EVER. I haven't said anything bad about gay people either!

You called someone (I think it was Inquisitor) a “Fag” just recently.   That is a derogatory term for homosexuals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Dude. Calm the fuck down. Ok? I get angry sometimes too. We all get pissed off after a while, but you need to cool the curcuits a bit. I don't need to do that.

There is nothing cognitively wrong with my brain or how it works. My brain works fine as far as anyone here should be concerned.

You're a fraud.

 

I wasn't really sure if you were trying to be nice or not, but then you decided to go back with the accusations again. I would have accepted it if you ddn't turn around to doing that again.

Also, how am I a fraud? I'm just another person on a forum, like you or anyone else. How am I different?

Quote

If I say something rude to the audience, it's because I'm sick and tired and an asshole sometimes. I tend to isolate myself from people I care about. My uncle is the same way. If anything, that's kinda crazy. However, nothing about me specifically is impared, nor makes your issues a non-issue. Understand? 

I know you want to paint that picture. Sadly, some will believe it. Perhaps I played a role and made mistakes.

It's not just rudeness though. Your entire focus and dilemma is negatively oriented. I mean in the general sense as well, not the spiritual one. Your focus is on recognizing the negative aspects of people or ideas the majority of the time. Admittedly you do have some good moments but most of it basically is ourgright insulting people for reasons minor ot major. You had an uncle with a temper but I actually had a father who was clinically diagnosed as a narcassist and I see many repeats in your behaviours as I did with him. Always blaming things on everything but himself, which is often a mask for his own flaws, always trying to use smear campaigns, refusing to try to empathise, understand or simply respect a perspective other than his own, even if it does contradict his own beliefs which can often lead to outlandish accusations which are borderline paranoid or rationalize it in a way that looks good on him or fits his ideals even if he has to resort to some of the methods I described previously. Evidently an old wound I probably still haven't recovered from. I tried very hard to ignore it and determine the issue impartially. It's one thing to be an external danger where I'm regarded as far as you're concerned but there is arguably a greater danger with those who apply themselves as "protectors" while themselves being severely negatively impaired, even if not mentally by disorder or illness etc, basically not equipped because they are equally the danger when they turn on those they say they care about. They are a different but ultimately equal threat, which is also why I said some time ago that you're nowhere near ready to take on such a role until that is cleared. Even if you aren't mentally impaired, consistent focus on negativity will cloud a person's judgement severely and make them unable to properly distinguish actual threat from aspects that can be percieved as threatening.

It's not something I'm trying to "paint" either. That's still you thinking the worst of me, because ultimately, we actually don't know each other on a personal level, not really. You only know what you see, and how your mind percieves what you see. That goes for anyone, and this isn't a totality of subjectivity thing. It's just as valid as if no one had mentioned it because, from the point of view of the person in question, no matter who it is, they will inherently see their view as "normal". How many people have actually referenced the possibility of mental illness though?

6 hours ago, Scot said:

You called someone (I think it was Inquisitor) a “Fag” just recently.   That is a derogatory term for homosexuals.  

Despite that I'm not actually homosexual and the term means nothing to me as a person, it's still used in a deliberately derogitory way.

Edited by Inquisitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that was me. He saw me make a comment that I'd sexually experimented with males, came in solely to keep posting to try and get me to respond. Calling me a fag, amongst other stuff, got moderated for it I think. What level of denial it takes for him to say he didn't, is beyond me. Straight up homophobia.

As for racism... well, look at his latest rants in the love and relationship forum. What was a trickle is becoming a flood. "Haven't said anything" is just... delusional.

Like a guy riding a bike, yelling to passers-by 'I'm not riding this bike!'. Then doing bike tricks to try and convince them he's not riding the bike. What a pathological liar.

Abusive, racist, homophobic, liar. Eugh. Vile.

I get what Garnet means in saying he's sparked fires that ended in interesting viewpoints (agreed with it myself at times), but, well, so does war. The cost and collateral is high.

Edited by Done Now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Done Now said:

seem likely to change anything. Normal people would realise they're not wanted, and leave after the first banning. But hey, 'Preditory people', right?

Let's clarify what banning actually is.

Imo banning has nothing to do with the person being "Not wanted".

Banning is an old school method to time the person out of the situation for crossing certain boundaries and/or rules established by community. 

Many parents are adviced to do the same thing when a child misbehaves. Depending on the child's age parents usually call it "time out" or "naughty chair" or simply let the child go into his room and think about what he did. The famous TV Super Nanny Jo Frost  advices to encourage older children to write about it and perhaps try to find possible solutions. First on your own, then with a parent.

That is basically how the prison system started.

The original intention was to give a criminal time and space to evaluate himself. 

 

........................

"Not wanted" is different.

"Not wanted" is for ex., being in a room with people and none of them obviously want to speak to you. Or pay any attention. Indifferent if you are well or not.

As long as "Not wanted" person's existence doesn't interfere with their arrogance, they have no problem with the things being the way they are. In this case, the "Not wanted" person would have to let things go severely uncomfortable for the sides to finally meet. People definitely hate feeling uncomfortable. It often touches their sense of shame and guilt. And that's where the turn is.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Scot said:

You called someone (I think it was Inquisitor) a “Fag” just recently.   That is a derogatory term for homosexuals.  

 

That doesn't mean I hate gay people. It means I think Inquisitor is a little pussy bitch. I don't know Inquisitor's sexual orientation. If I had to guess, you wouldn't want to hear it. Believe me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Done Now said:

Yeah, that was me. He saw me make a comment that I'd sexually experimented with males, came in solely to keep posting to try and get me to respond. Calling me a fag, amongst other stuff, 

AMONGST OTHER STUFF. OHH BOOOO HOOOO HOOOOO. YOU'RE NOT EVEN GAY!!! LITTLE BABY BOY. WHAT. YOU'RE UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY I TREAT YOU. GOOD. SERVES YOU RIGHT FOR TALKING SHIT, LITTLE FAGGOT. HAHAHA. I LOVE IT. KEEP IT COMING LITTLE BOY. BOO HOOO.

 

Ahh.

I shouldn't give him ammunition llike this, but it's so rewarding to see him use it.

 

In reality I have no problems with gays. I really don't care. But... Done Now is a little annoying fly. He is. It isn't the gay experimentation that made me call him that. He's just a guy starting shit non stop. That's why. Probably because where I'm from. I understand why people might take issue. I apologise.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tldr: 'I'll prove I'm not abusive or homophobic by acting abusive and homophobic'

"Serves you right for talking shit"

What unrelenting irony.

Edited by Done Now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Garnet said:

Let's clarify what banning actually is.

Imo banning has nothing to do with the person being "Not wanted".

Banning is an old school method to time the person out of the situation for crossing certain boundaries and/or rules established by community. 

Many parents are adviced to do the same thing when a child misbehaves. Depending on the child's age parents usually call it "time out" or "naughty chair" or simply let the child go into his room and think about what he did. The famous TV Super Nanny Jo Frost  advices to encourage older children to write about it and perhaps try to find possible solutions. First on your own, then with a parent.

That is basically how the prison system started.

The original intention was to give a criminal time and space to evaluate himself. 

 

........................

"Not wanted" is different.

"Not wanted" is for ex., being in a room with people and none of them obviously want to speak to you. Or pay any attention. Indifferent if you are well or not.

As long as "Not wanted" person's existence doesn't interfere with their arrogance, they have no problem with the things being the way they are. In this case, the "Not wanted" person would have to let things go severely uncomfortable for the sides to finally meet. People definitely hate feeling uncomfortable. It often touches their sense of shame and guilt. And that's where the turn is.

 

Fair enough, I can respect that viewpoint. 

I thought as I was writing it that maybe I was running the risk of appearing as if I was talking for everyone. I figured at the time that 'well, a bunch of people I've spoken to have agreed', and just moved on from there. I should've been clearer in making sure it was presented as my and other's opinion, rather than an absoloute statement. And certainly not to suggest that I'm in the know about what's going on decisions-wise on a moderation level.

To offer my own viewpoint in return, I guess I come from a different background on the purpose of banning: that when someone has been given enough warnings and failed to alter their behaviour to meet the group's expectations, they have their participation rights removed until such time as they want to appeal to the admin team. In an internet context, they're removed because, basically, their being there is harming the group's platform for discussion more than it's helping it. I feel confident by now after talking to a few people, that MistaRender inhibits more discussions than he initiates, and the ones that happen in his wake are often more in spite of him, than thanks to him. They have a cost. Thus, I think his being here isn't good for the group, and so I make no secret of the fact that I would like him to generally leave, like he keeps 'threatening' he'll do, and which he keeps demanding of other people who annoy him. I've always been very open that I'm a fan of reciprocity, and think strongly that if someone says something to another person, they're also saying that it's fine for that thing to be said back to them. That's a big rule for me, however messy it can get when dealing with someone so suppressed as MistaRender.

Like I said though, I can respect that that's not your viewpoint.

I'm still always of two minds about my own; there's always the idea that engaging means finding a middleground, and that understanding from that middleground can resolve issues... but also often, trying to take a middleground doesn't mean a solution can reached.

It took me a little while to try and get on the same page as Teal in one of her recent videos (and I might not have gotten it properly yet), called 'fuck balance'. Took a few tries, and I'm not confident even she'd agree with my takeaway. I think it's relevant here though.

There's definately the level that, wanting to 'subtract' the thing I see as a negative energy, means trying to limit that other thing. That level is in play, for sure.

There's also, however, the level that, in preventing myself from expressing that want, I'm limiting my own. To remain silent wouldn't be me helping anything be integrated anywhere.

Edit: that sounds very zero-sum in how I've expressed that, but it's not intended to be. It's all just one step at a time.

-----

How I think that video would be most relevant to the parts of my viewpoint that I'm trying to explain to you, is right around the 9-10 minute mark of that video. To be completely clear: I'm 100% on board with no more bannings as a solution to problems... but I'm also going to still express my honest thoughts about the hows and whys regarding what's here. And some of my wants too sometimes. At least, to a limited degree. I keep saying something on this forum, when it comes to MistaRender: I can empathise, but not sympathise. Because empathising means sharing a feeling with someone... if the feeling that's being expressed isn't sympathy, it would be dishonest to try and reflect Sympathy. 'Empathy' is a fundamental part of the integration process, as I understand it. It has a very similar meaning to some of the other words and concepts Teal uses in her more recent videos.

Edited by Done Now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MistaRender said:

AMONGST OTHER STUFF. OHH BOOOO HOOOO HOOOOO. YOU'RE NOT EVEN GAY!!! LITTLE BABY BOY. WHAT. YOU'RE UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY I TREAT YOU. GOOD. SERVES YOU RIGHT FOR TALKING SHIT, LITTLE FAGGOT. HAHAHA. I LOVE IT. KEEP IT COMING LITTLE BOY. BOO HOOO.

This is a pure example of a heart that finds joy in hate.  Render finds joy in hate.  

Dalai Lama: “Don’t let someone else’s behaviour destroy your inner peace”. (Or words to that effect)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That doesn't mean I hate gay people. It means I think Inquisitor is a little pussy bitch. I don't know Inquisitor's sexual orientation. If I had to guess, you wouldn't want to hear it. Believe me.

Tryng to insinuate something I'm not or to do so for the sole purposes of discredition of phantom incrimination simply because they don't agree with certain unrelated viewpoints that have been expressed isn't called for, and calling me or someone else a "pussy bitch" is hardly relevant either and only serves to call the motives of the accuser into question.

If people really want to know, hetro, just to clear things up. I would say "normal" but in the sense of the average human orientation of compatability. Homsosexuality is still a normality at least as far as relationships are concerned but the typical nature that males can't breed with other males and females can't breed with other females. While there is no obligation to do that in such relationships and are other methods of doing so, you get my point. It's "typical" because that's how it's naturally fundamentally designed to function. This isn't a smear against homosexuality though because it's only that cannot be changed within the biology. I'm only saying this to prove a point which has nothing to do with MR but it's funny how people can fly off the handle because they see the term of "normal" as discrimination to homosexuality yet are willing to discriminate anything outside of the "normality" of presedignated cultural and societal, ethical definitions. 

 

 

Edited by Inquisitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Scot Gotta agree with that, that's a moment of honesty right there. He said the real reason he's here again, he forgot his pretenses just for a moment, spoke from the heart. Like he says, he loves it, for whatever reason. A very telling moment where his real intent and character shone through. The 'vile' stuff he seems incapable of thinking about, I think.

It kind of reminds me of the kids I used to work with, except it's an adult doing it. Which I feel a little guilty about finding kind of funny, on some levels. I mean, intellectually disabled, abused kids have a good excuse for how they behave, literate adults... not so much. Ohwell, it'll all come out in the wash, eventually. Everything always does, eventually.

Edited by Done Now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MistaRender said:

The problem isn't between him and me. The problem is the likelyhood of someone either a) becoming mentally ill, or b) committing suicide because of his posts.

From 'Reality, what it is and what it is not'

1 hour ago, MistaRender said:

And so Inquisitor stays!!!

So you're saying it's not about me or you, but the approach. Yet you still direct the issues focus on getting rid of 'me', not the approach.. Right...

Firstly, that's just an excuse to nagate responsibility and shifting or deflecting any focus or legitimate blame. Secondly, so if I reworked the approach the way you see it as a danger of explaining it as a way of certification of belief, but more as a topic for debate and discussion: talking about it in a way people can express their own opinions on it without it appearing like a directive. Still explaing it as my angle of approach but it removes your percieved "threat" of it - which to clarify a difference between danger and maliciousness, like cars are not tools for malicious use but a vehicle designed for transport, yet can be dangerous when used iresponsibly which I'm guessing is the missing crux in your understanding - would assume this would solve the problem. However even if that's the case, it has already been noted that you have a lack of tolerance for anything that doesn't match or reflect your own ideals. The very title of "Reality, What it is, and what it is not" is a clear show of rigidness with very little room for discussion. The smallest things, even the most harmless, seem to ire you to the extreme degree, but even so I will ask anyway if it is sufficient.

To be fair, I should have done that from the beginning but assumed with this being a spiritual based forum for discussion, people would understand the concepts without seeing them innately as a liability or an asset, or recognized both wihout bias or judgement. Clearly that seems impossible where even unrelated to the forum itself, there is cultural and societal bonds of stigma and fear based comprehension where people get triggerd over someone saying "that's a thing" even if they don't agree with that perspective, but have to disclaim, discredit and utterly deny or remove it just because they can't handle the idea of it's existance.

Quote

I love how Garnet doesn't address any REAL issues.

K so since you can't get your own way, you pull leverage of authority, such as Garnet, a moderator,  someone with an apparent authority or leverage to get your way for you. Again, motives in question here... Whether you believe the danger to be legitimate or no, it's still a scummy tactic. It more shows that you just want your own way and will utilze or exploit leverage to do so.

Edited by Inquisitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.