Jump to content

Mr. Scot

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mr. Scot last won the day on January 21

Mr. Scot had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

49,234 Fuggin Awesome

About Mr. Scot

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

51,306 profile views
  1. Actually, it's all you've said. You want people who said this about Cam Newton or that about Eric Reid or the other about Colin Kaepernick to be banned because they're being "subtle racists". Again, they don't need to say anything that's actually racist. They just have to disagree with your viewpoints. Thus, anyone you call racist deserves to be banned oh, and the accusation is all that's really necessary. No proof required because it's "subtle". Riiiight
  2. Mr. Scot

    Hate to say this but...

    I think over the course of the next few months, we're going to see more than a few suggestions of where Thomas Davis might fit in. Some were probably going to like a lot less than others.
  3. We're talking about taking away your primary tactic for getting out of or derailing an argument you're losing Red. I'm not surprised you'd be against it.
  4. Reddit has a lot more manpower than the Huddle does. That's what limits some of the options, honestly. And to be clear, I'm definitely not saying "do nothing". I am saying there are some suggestions that may not be practical given real world limitations.
  5. Not at all. If you go back to page one, the suggestion that there be zero tolerance for discussion of controversial topics like politics and racism didn't actually come from me, but I agree with it. That doesn't mean just deny political discussion from one side. It means all political discussion. On the other hand, your automatic suggestion was to get rid of people who said anything that could even be remotely moderately slightly stretched to be construed as racist. As examples of this, you suggested things that actually do not require racism at all. They just happen to be things you disagree with. We have a difference of goals: I want to have good, fun football discussion. You want to exclude people you don't like from being part of the discussion. Personally, I think that's a pretty arrogant notion.
  6. That's a lot more work for Igo and the mods though. That's where I think the idea ultimately breaks down.
  7. I've gone back and forth on the 'neg rep' thing. I was originally in favor of it, but Igo argued it was being abused. Sometimes newbies were unnecessarily targeted. Other times people just neg repped posters they didn't like regardless of whether their post was bad or not. Have to admit he had a point.
  8. I'm not fighting for my right to bully people out of the forum for believing differently than I do.
  9. I don't really give a rat's ass how any player dresses. Some people do. Doesn't mean they're racist. Believe it or not, people are capable of having opinions that aren't based on race.
  10. None of those things serve as proof of racism. You might think they are, but again, that's just your opinion. And regardless of how important you may think you are, your opinion isn't a good enough reason to justify kicking someone out.
  11. We still have one?
  12. Pretty much. Ron Rivera is pretty heavily disliked on the forum right now. Is it because he's Hispanic? Severely doubt it. I'd say it has a lot more to do with a seven game slide than it does his heritage. Is any of the criticism of Christian McCaffrey by certain folks because he's white? Possible. Can it be proven based on football related discussion? Again, doubt it. You might come to believe that if you listen to what people say, but that suspicion shouldn't be enough to kick somebody out of the discussion. Bottom Line: You try to police who might be racist, you're opening a real can of worms. That's why I think Igo's prior post negating anythink political in the football forum is probably the best way to go.
  13. I was actually one of the people who originally suggested a separate forum for politics. The reason was because at the time, a lot of angry political discussion was stinking up the Lounge. These days, the general tone of political discussion in the country is even more venomous now than it was back then, and by a significant margin. Like I said before though, what's actually happening here ultimately boils down to people just trying to bully those who think differently than they do out of the discussion. And the only real justification they offer for it is "we're right". That's the kind of self-righteous attitude that people use to justify things like harassing people's families out in public. I find it pretty sickening myself, but sadly that's the world today. And yeah, good people have left because they don't want to deal with all the bullsh-t. if I weren't already here and I was just stumbling across this forum, that'd turn me off joining too. Bottom line, though: I'm pretty sure if Igo limits this forum to football discussion only, I think somehow America will survive.
  14. If I'm being honest, I think we're kind of grasping at straws here. I've seen plenty of people in the past talk about switching to 3-4 as if it was the cure for everything that ails us. Could it work? Sure, but it's no magic bullet. I think we could just as easily stick with the 4-3 we just got younger, especially up front.