So it's okay to make threats, even when you don't mean them? We are supposed to always assume your threats are false, even during your periodic breakdowns? And as I said, the person I believe we are talking about faked a lot of his pro-choice rhetoric, as he was actually highly protectionist in his thinking. Of course, you didn't even tell me if he leaked my supposed personal info to you maliciously or if he just did it stupidly (without really thinking about what he said first). And it wouldn't be easy for you to ruin my career, because most people I know well in real life are well aware I am a hebephile with pro-choice views, and I do not work with minors professionally.

Challenge me all you like. Just expect to get your bullshit called at times too. I'm not here to stir shit up, but I'm not going to let your arrogance go unchallenged either. You and Hen-Wen are the bullies here, Dissident, not me. I present ideas, and Hen-Wen throws stupid shit from years ago in my face, as if that's somehow an argument. I acted stupidly at the time; I've acknowledged that. But it has nothing to do with my points now at all, and it doesn't make you or Hen-Wen right. You're just dragging up old shit to scare people. It is one of the cult tactics I mentioned writ large, and obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

Those incidents from the past display how you get when you are backed into a corner, or especially how you get when you have one of your periodic breakdowns. You expect people to forget about these things. One mistake, maybe. But several? That is a whole other thing. And you think constantly accusing this board of "cultish" behavior isn't stirring up shit? It all comes down to the fact that you are a lot more typical of an anti-contact MAA than you like to think, and you can't stand the thought of your own community being the only one in the world that doesn't harbor your stance predominantly. You like to make threats, tell us that you want to "cure" yourself and that we should all do the same, and then come back and tell us, "I didn't mean what I said, and anyone who thinks I might have are being unfair bullies." Boo fucking whoo.

I presented some of the warning signs of a cult and suggested that GC bore some similarities. But when was the last time I even mentioned anything about cults? Two, three years ago maybe?

Um, Lat, you did it quite frequently during this entire thread. Whoops!

And when I did, I did say I don't ascribe to the view that GC is a full-on cult anymore. That's hardly a mantra, even by the broadest definition.

You say it over and over again, like a broken record. That sounds similar to what you accuse us of doing with your "mantra" claims.

Furthermore, the fact that you completely misread my motives and my reasoning demonstrates that you really have a thin grasp on human psychology, which worries me.

Now you are worried about us for some other reason. You're right, just because you happened to threaten people on more than one occasion in the past means that anyone who thinks you may be doing it again when you skirt similar territory must be suffering from a worrisome lack of knowledge of human psychology. As opposed to you, a master of psychology and human throught processes. Gotcha.

You prove over and over again how naive you are in so many ways.

As opposed to your worldliness, which includes your inability to deal with simple political realities, and seeing common politics and social groups at work as "cultish" behavior. Yup, no naiviety there. Your naive belief that everyone with opposing viewpoints can and will always play nice together as long as they share one arbitrary similarity is almost beyond belief. You love playing politics yourself, but when other people play them against you, you call them naive. Nice.

You seem completely unaware of some rather obvious things, and you frame all of reality through your socio-political views, which are, at best, untried and at worst may be disastrous.

As opposed to mainstream socio-political views, which work so well for the vast majority of the world, never amount to disaster, and have proven to be in the best interests of all. Yup, fighting for change from something that clearly doesn't work is really a sign of naiviety, as opposed to trying to do the same thing over and over again, failing each time, yet hoping for a different result the next time we do it. Sorry, Lat, but I will take my stance for change and take a chance on it over something that is proven to be rotten to the core and unworkable any day of the week. You fear change, and calling people who seek it and believe it's possible (including on the contact issue) naive is an all too common political tactic that I am all too familiar with for such a tactic to work on me. Shame on you for trying such a transparent tactic. If I truly was naive, then I probably would have fallen for it.

You're a smart guy, Diss, but you lack wisdom and seem to have no concept of political compromise or the real-world conditions which often require it.

Yup, a strong belief and support for civil rights and common human decency shows a lack of wisdom. As opposed to your ever so wise stance, which doesn't know the difference between compromise and capitulation, and cannot possibly conceive of the idea that draconian laws never amount to anything good in a society based upon democratic principles, despite countless examples in both ancient and recent history. That's the epitome of wisdom, right? Asking your community to embrace tactics and laws that are clearly hurtful to them and dangerous to democracy, and expect good results to come of it, and attacking anyone fighting for change as naive and unwise, and calling the same mistake done repeatedly an example of "compromise," makes it quite clear what a bastion of wisdom you are. But I guess those few draconian laws you support are what you consider "compromise," correct? For your info, Mr. Wise Man, my very membership in B4U-Act, and playing by its rules implicitely, make it quite clear I am capable of compromise. All of the idiotic things you have done in this community in the past certainly do make you the prime individual to judge the wisdom of others, right? Going against your principles is not a valid form of compromise, nor is it a sign of wisdom; rather, it's a sign of expediency. The fact that you don't know the difference between the two, and actually think other people are naive enough to fall for your "sleep with the enemy" tactics, make it quite clear that while I am far from the wisest person on this planet (or even in this community), compared to you, I may as well be King Solomon.