The Dutch beach volleyball player who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl in England has won his second match at the Paris Olympics.

Dutch beach volleyball player Steven van de Velde, who served time in prison after he was convicted of raping a 12-year-old girl, won his second match at the Paris Olympics and received an even harsher reaction from the crowd on Wednesday than for his first match.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    Cool, except, like I said, I’m not ignorant on the topic. You just decided I was. That’s how I knew that consensus decision-making involved voting despite you saying it didn’t and saying the article (which you obviously never read) didn’t talk about voting.

    There’s a really bad inclination of redditors to think that if you don’t know everything then you’re a fool, and that’s just not true. So let’s not do that - let’s be honest when we don’t know something, and take it as an opportunity to learn, rather than digging our heels in and refusing to budge.

    And yet you keep lying about me being ignorant on this topic.

    Anyways, I hope you took the opportunity to learn about consensus decision making

    My favorite part about this is that, as I told you in a previous comment, I already told you I knew about it so you’re not only lying, you’re gaslighting.

    Condescending, lying, gaslighting… anything else you want to do to convince me that you’re a troll who doesn’t belong here?

    • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      You can say what you like, but we both know the truth. Have you ever interacted with a delusional person before? It’s quite difficult, because you can’t confirm their delusions, but also just straight up telling them that they’re delusional isn’t very effective - they kind of close up and it’s harder to get through to them. So you kind of have to talk around it a bit, without directly challenging them.

      I feel like it’s pretty apparent that you hadn’t heard of consensus-based decision making prior to our conversation. You’ve probably got some hazy ideas on the subject, but only from understanding the words used to form the term and some ideas about how a jury comes to make its decision, but you don’t have a firm grasp on the subject.

      I can provide plenty of evidence to back up my belief:

      1. You continue to talk about consensus-based decision making as though it is necessarily about, or involves, voting. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works - the focus is on proposal making, discussion, and adapting proposals until there is something that everyone agrees with. There are forms of consensus-based decision making which, when incapable of finding a true consensus, have a fall-back mechanism akin to voting, but it is not necessarily part of the core concept. If you knew about the subject prior, you would already know that, because it is fundamental.
      2. I have, since we started speaking, mentioned consensus-based decision making in 6 out of the 14 messages I sent prior to asking you to google consensus-based decision making, and you very clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding around what it was and how it would work - you mentioned that judges are elected in the US, for example — a pluralistic voting system, not a consensus-based one. If you understood the term prior, I would not have had to refer you to Google.
      3. You linked me to the Wikipedia page about consensus-based decision making. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a starting point for people looking to learn about a subject for the first time, you’re also not even reading my messages, which refers them to other sources to learn from. If you already knew about consensus based decision making, you would have used a better, more appropriate source, such as the Seeds for Change website or something from the Consensus Council.

      Now, it could be that you somehow did actually know about the topic, and you’ve just acted as though you don’t for some other reason, that’s entirely possible, but I don’t believe it. But do you see how that’s different from me lying and “gaslighting” you? If I truly believe that you’re ignorant of something, then it’s neither lying nor manipulation for me to act as though you are ignorant of it.

      It’s absolutely beggars belief that you would consider me a troll, but it’s reassuring in a way - you’re demonstrating that my arguments are persuasive enough that they’re beginning to threaten your ego, and you’re lashing out in self-defence. Your next step would be to block me or get me banned, to ensure that my words can no longer haunt you. You can do that, but hopefully my words will be a seed that can grow in your mind. Change is a long journey, and we often don’t realise when it has started.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldMEnglish
        1·
        3 months ago

        Cool, more lying and gaslighting. But no, you’re clearly not a troll, just someone who thinks lying, gaslighting and now just plain old insults are appropriate around here. They are not.

        And your silly prediction is wrong. I am not going to ban you for this despite the incivility rule violation. I am just going to stop talking to you.

        But you have just earned yourself the eye of a moderator who will not tolerate your rule-breaking with anyone else. Including if I see any in your recent history.

        • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          3 months ago

          If you were capable of arguing further, then you would - so I’m really glad to have gotten through to you, thank you for your time.

          Just so you know, you can ban me all you want, I can just create any number of new accounts, I can change my IP address, I can even spin up a whole other instance if I really want to. I don’t mind if you want to give in to your ego, you don’t need to find another excuse - or let this message be the excuse. I’m just glad that my time spent with you has been worthwhile.

          Like I said - rules, in our present society, are for oppressors.