Chile Forum

Well, even if you don't agree that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, or that he who lives by the sword will get nipped in the butt, there's this to consider when calling for deletion of this thread: anything that's written in this thread would likely be written in other non-relevant threads all across the forum....

So why not have all the allchile vitriol in one easy to reference and monitor place? John at one point started a thread to use as his vehicle for his political views, and even though thread hijacking has a long history here, I think it would be preferable to have all of the diatribes, retaliations, and sneaky insertions about Pakistanis, Glenn Beck, blackboards, wogs, spics, political correctness, and so on right here instead of derailing innumerable threads all over.

I personally will try not to speculate about anyone's ancestry, mental state, or otherwise offer gross insults here, not necessarily because I'm so PC, but because any arguments I make should stand without those, and I wouldn't mind if everyone else did the same. So lay off the profanity NW

el puelche wrote:This is either a really good idea or a really bad one...my vote is that it is a bad idea, and this will be my only participation in it.

p

This thread is a bad idea.
Nothing good can or will come of it.

People... get a sense of humor. I don't think anyone here will really start insulting people... I thought the "idea" was just funny.

People... get a sense of humor. I don't think anyone here will really start insulting people... I thought the "idea" was just funny.

You are new. Many of the posters in this thread really are serious. I like, respect and posess a sense of humor. Looks like you have a nice one. But what too often goes on here does not involve humor, though it is often cast as such.

As for what is good for the goose also being good for the gander, I agree. I would simply not agree as to who is the goose and who is the gander. I am perfectly willing to have a sharp but civilized discussion. I am happy to have real or virtual beer to make nice afterwards. I am also willing to hand back nastiness, especially to those who are largely used to dishing it out but not getting any in return. Further, if you come at me with a verbal knife, I will generally go for the verbal gun in response. Some of you think that mean,or whatever. So be it.

I have a different view of what constitutes "nastiness". For example, I do not view rejecting your "evidence" as mean, if I can show it as flawed, like say, clearly skewed stats on US military spending, made to make it appear greater than it is. Nor do I view rejecting loudness or unsupported statements (We MUST NEVER, NEVER do "x", We must ALWAYS DO "X", SUPPORT DEMOCRACY, etc ) as mean - and FYI, this means you Frank, arguing with you is dull and pointless because all you do is hysterically repeat such mantras and then get bent out of shape when someone disagrees, or simply keels over from frustration, and then re-repeat the mantras, loudly.

I do view directly (HighTower, Gloria) or indirectly (PDC, mainly in immigration posts) branding someone a racist, hater, etc with no good reason, as very nasty indeed - and unfortunately all too common here and elsewhere. Such vicious attacks are cover for the perps' own mindless adherence to a pseudo-religion, such as "Thou Shalt Always Exhalt the Brown Skinned Over the Bad White Man" - pretty much what PM David Cameron was getting at in the quote I posted at the immigration thread, but which few wished to address at all. Calling me names (HT, Gloria) was soooo much easier than actually addressing what was said, as was simply attacking my non-existent traits and motives (PDC). Rather, most of the posters who disagreed with me proved Cameron right by immediately getting personal and nasty, and then labeling me as the bad guy for daring to hand it back. This pattern is not new, and can be found in many threads. Now some of the perps seek refuge here.

It shows them - and those who choose to be their hangers-on for what they are.

I will continue to post as I normally have. I prefer to argue rather than insult, and I am also willing to argue hard. But if you come at me with epithets of "racist" and the like, expect rough handling.

Argue. Discuss. Heck, ignore. And for some of you who cannot see your own insults and inability to think and articulate for what they are - grow up.

John Hyre, Observing the Teeming Denizens of the All-Chile Woodwork

The purpose of this forum is written at the top of every page:

Chile Forum in English for Gringos, Expatriates, and Travelers to Exchange Ideas and Information about Chile, South America

This thread is not constructive.

People... get a sense of humor. I don't think anyone here will really start insulting people... I thought the "idea" was just funny.

Yeah, it's hilarious so far

This is pathetic and petty. Grow up.

How many would simply prefer to see all non-Chile talk banned here?

Non-Chile politics only banned?

How about threads discussing Chile that go political (e.g. - PDC getting all PC Righteous over "it's in their blood", aka, deeply rooted in the culture)? Should the political parts of that post be zapped?

Just curious. I see some people (Hello Frank!) objecting to certain political discussion (mine), what's different between those discussions and the vast, vast body of non-John political discussion on this site?

John Hyre

I strongly object to racism on the forum. You can call it PC Righteousness or whatever you like to make you sleep better at night, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Well, I guess not everyone think the same way I do. I know there is people that like to argue, discuss, fight, whatever you call it. I never hide from a good argument either and have strong ideas myself (usually leaning towards conservative view, less government involvement, big military, legal immigration, etc, etc... and I do not consider myself a republican... nor a uninformed "independent") Anyway, if this thread was meant to be serious and is with the real purpose to really just complain about people and things said I do agree would be useless and a waist of time. There is no point on attacking or just insulting just to "get it out of our system". If I disagree with someone I will say it right there and then not going to a special place or thread, I usually won't waist another minute of my "sanity"' thinking about it so I don't have to get it out of any system. If it's really bad I would just go for a run...
My two cents. and I still say all that with a smile.

Tombi,

Strongly object to racism? Accusing someone of racism is a pretty serious matter. Either the target is a racist or you are a vicious person who is quick to throw a smear and trivialize true racism. Back it up and you better be right, or you are as low as what you accuse others of being.

I think paladin's words were poorly chosen in light of modern sensibilities. One can interpret "in the blood" as literal, in which case I would agree it is racist. One can also interpret it in vernacular, which is how it is most often used, to mean it is deeply embedded in the culture, similar to "must be something in the water". And in the case of Latin culture in general, and Chilean in particular, I would have to say that the overall thrust of the "Horror Stories" thread is correct, as a matter of culture, but not as a matter of race. That one chooses to immediately paint the words in the worst possible light says more about the person making the accusation than it does about the accused.

If you view yourself as a right-thinking and compassionate person, you might be a little more thoughtful and sensitive before uttering such a strong accusation. Perhaps at least think about where someone is coming from, and whether there are there other good responses.

PDC LOVES to go into "Not All Chileans are x"....with examples such as "My Dad doesn't drink, do x, etc", so not ALL Chlieans drink, do X, etc. Problem is, no one is saying "all" Chileans are X. Just that certain trends are very deeply rooted in the culture. He is arguing against a strawman, against an argument that has not been made, instead of addressing the argument that was actually made. The real question: Is the description of the generalization accurate or not, in general, as opposed to in every single case? A secondary question: Does the individual in question do nothing but bash Chileans on an All-Chile website? If so, they are not necessarily rascist, but likely tiresome and rude. I would say the same for someone who can only expouse on the good in Chile, and gets testy when someone points out the not so good. This is why, for example, much as he contributes in a thoughtful and relevant manner, I did not care for Px's constant use of the term "not civilized" to describe Chile. Racist? No. Irritating? Yes.

John Hyre

To the OP of this thread, out of bounds, not constructive, likly not going stop normal nastiness that is inevitable in any forum in the long-run. However, it is mildly entertaining.

Going to Veto and lock it on the grounds that it is not good for the overall health of the community.