I thought they made up and agreed to go their separate ways and wish each other no ill will. What did I miss? Dwai is the voice of reason here. Todd kept up his side of the agreement.
I thought they made up and agreed to go their separate ways and wish each other no ill will. What did I miss? Dwai is the voice of reason here. Todd kept up his side of the agreement.
can someone cliff notes this since i just clicked page 4 todge do you owe this woman an edible arrangement are they a pod sponsor
Too long and too dumb to summarize any real detail.
Chick googled herself, found old post where someone other than druff called her a slut, druff got hammered by a mob of poker nobodies on Twitter.
Originally Posted by Dan Druff
Damn Nihilists. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
https://twitter.com/twt/status/1654856758936973318
Jesus christ, are you now required to apologize and return money won for triggering hurt feelings?
Far left poker needs to be detonated.
PokerFraudAlert...will never censor your claims, even if they're against one of our sponsors. In addition to providing you an open forum report fraud within the poker community, we will also analyze your claims with a clear head an unbiased point of view. And, of course, the accused will always have the floor to defend themselves.-Dan Druff
Brothers we've survived the PR crisis, with Woke Poker now going after much bigger names.
We took some body blows but none bigger than this which effectively encapsulates the crux of PFA ethos like no other:
https://twitter.com/twt/status/1653969950183411716
:shinebox
PokerFraudAlert...will never censor your claims, even if they're against one of our sponsors. In addition to providing you an open forum report fraud within the poker community, we will also analyze your claims with a clear head an unbiased point of view. And, of course, the accused will always have the floor to defend themselves.-Dan Druff
please stop the Jewish hateBrothers we've survived the PR crisis, with Woke Poker now going after much bigger names.
We took some body blows but none bigger than this which effectively encapsulates the crux of PFA ethos like no other:
https://twitter.com/twt/status/1653969950183411716
:shinebox
Fuck them Druff; fwiw I fully endorse the Nicky Pipes message in this thread.
That Jaffe fuck has the sorta face you’d never tire of smacking. Who the fuck is he anyhow, pathetic little virtue signalling slob that he is
You are fully entitled to have an opinion on what people put out there; everyone judges all the time. That said, as a public (non-anonymous) figure I can see why you apologised.
However probably wise to learn from this one; better stay away from publicly posting on anything to do with people’s sexual preferences. Etc. though you absolutely did nothing wrong especially in the Jami Lafey case
It saddens me as it brings entertainment to the show and forum, and I despise this form of cancel culture bullying, but I can see why you might want to tread a bit more carefully in this area henceforth.
Lastly, I believe Veronica Brill has shown her true colours that’s for sure.
BALLIN'!!
Notwithstanding the fact that I still think Veronica Brill is a sanctimonious and virtue signaling opportunist, your post was pretty thoughtless and I consider it a credit to you that you own that fact and apologize.
People simply don't appreciate having their lifestyles discussed in a way that could be perceived as judgmental or negative; that's all. Even if someone, purportedly, opens up the floor to discussion of their lifestyle by bringing it up themselves, I don't know that the floor is opened for anything that could be taken as criticism.*
I will say that the part where you academically compared swinging to polyamory, as if you were discussing a call vs. shove decision on a poker hand, was both clueless and unintentionally hilarious. Not clueless in the sense that what you said was right or wrong, but clueless in the sense of...just, why?
Honestly, this is why non-religious people, such as myself, generally can't tolerate religious people. Of course, by that standard, yours was a minor infraction, at worst.
Religious people seem to be very judgmental when it comes to the lifestyles of the non religious, but let me ask you this: Would it be better to be a religious person who commits infidelity upon his spouse, but outwardly presents as morally virtuous, as so many do...or be open with the fact that you are polyamorous? Myself, I would have no interest in sexually associating with a polyamorous person, or with swingers, so that they make themselves known is a favor to me.
But, the judgment? Naughty, naughty.
You know and I know that your own faith considers you an idler, as a result of your chosen occupation, so why judge others for anything? PFA and yourself, as a sort of self-appointed watchdog in your community, should be here to ensure that there is honor amongst us thieves...not to question whether or not we should be thieves or to judge based on unrelated personal choices.
But, it seems you have taken this lesson, which again, is a credit to you.
*Yes, yes, I know, but only Evangelicals and only because I'm fighting them on their own chosen field using their own chosen weapons. I just happen to be better at it than they are, which is an asset that comes from being functionally intelligent, an attribute that most of them do not enjoy.
Let's take a step back and look at what you wrote above. I assume you're a naturalist, therefore you believe we are nothing but relatively advanced primates. So according to your world view, there are no objective moral values and duties. If you're consistent with atheism, morality is either subjective and/or relative.Notwithstanding the fact that I still think Veronica Brill is a sanctimonious and virtue signaling opportunist, your post was pretty thoughtless and I consider it a credit to you that you own that fact and apologize.
People simply don't appreciate having their lifestyles discussed in a way that could be perceived as judgmental or negative; that's all. Even if someone, purportedly, opens up the floor to discussion of their lifestyle by bringing it up themselves, I don't know that the floor is opened for anything that could be taken as criticism.*
I will say that the part where you academically compared swinging to polyamory, as if you were discussing a call vs. shove decision on a poker hand, was both clueless and unintentionally hilarious. Not clueless in the sense that what you said was right or wrong, but clueless in the sense of...just, why?
Honestly, this is why non-religious people, such as myself, generally can't tolerate religious people. Of course, by that standard, yours was a minor infraction, at worst.
Religious people seem to be very judgmental when it comes to the lifestyles of the non religious, but let me ask you this: Would it be better to be a religious person who commits infidelity upon his spouse, but outwardly presents as morally virtuous, as so many do...or be open with the fact that you are polyamorous? Myself, I would have no interest in sexually associating with a polyamorous person, or with swingers, so that they make themselves known is a favor to me.
But, the judgment? Naughty, naughty.
You know and I know that your own faith considers you an idler, as a result of your chosen occupation, so why judge others for anything? PFA and yourself, as a sort of self-appointed watchdog in your community, should be here to ensure that there is honor amongst us thieves...not to question whether or not we should be thieves or to judge based on unrelated personal choices.
But, it seems you have taken this lesson, which again, is a credit to you.
*Yes, yes, I know, but only Evangelicals and only because I'm fighting them on their own chosen field using their own chosen weapons. I just happen to be better at it than they are, which is an asset that comes from being functionally intelligent, an attribute that most of them do not enjoy.
Who's to say what Todd did was objectively wrong? At best, you can say in your opinion, what he did was subjectively frowned upon. You come across as very arrogant saying you're "better at debating Christians concerning morality because you're functionally intelligent." That is an insult to believers everywhere.
Honestly, you do seem intelligent, and are probably a lot more "book smart" than I am. I'm being sincere when I say you have a well articulated writing style. Having said that, there is no chance you would even step on the same platform as William Lane Craig, Hugh Ross, or John Lennox. There is a reason why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig, and everybody (including atheist) know it. Can we both at least agree that science is not the only way to the truth?
Damn; I like you already!
I honestly have to say that there aren't any philosophical labels I would apply to myself as relates morality, or even any ethos to which I even loosely adhere. If nothing else, I could probably be called a pragmatist more than anything.
I consider myself an Agnostic, which comes largely by way of being a pragmatist. For me to call myself an Atheist, at least as the word is normally used, would be just as much a statement of faith in something that I cannot know as its opposite-theism. My lack of ability to prove the absence of something requires that I merely point to the fact that no sufficient evidence has been provided that would prove the thing in question, rather than simply saying the thing does not exist.
You are correct that I don't believe in any objective morality. There is something to social contract theory and whether or not, should a moral position be agreed to by a sufficient number of people, whether or not it is almost just as good as that position being a moral objective fact. I think that there can be some value in that, and there must be, because that's what laws (useful ones that actually protect against bad actors, anyway) are based on and laws give our society order.
With that, the questions become: How much order is needed? Where should this order come from? Does the order have to come from anything? If the order does come from something, does the something it comes from have to be valid in order for the order itself to be valid?
My answers, at present, and in brief:
How much order is needed? As little as possible.
Where should this order come from? Social contract. Preferably a supermajority, if you will---especially if the moral question isn't one where there would be a clear victim if such an action were allowed.
Does the order have to come from anything? By definition, yes. The order can even be informed by other things, as various things inform people of their morals, and there is room for religion in that. Religion, for some, might even be necessary for that. I don't think there's anyone more concerning, to me, than a religious person who asks, "How can you have morality without a God?" Wait. Hold on a minute. Are you really suggesting your belief in God is the only thing keeping you from just running around raping and murdering whomever you wish, at least, from a moral standpoint? That's a bit frightening. Anyway, for certain people, I think it's necessary for them that they believe in something greater than ourselves and, perhaps, greater than this planet and Universe; I can't prove that, of course, but it certainly seems as if this belief positively informs some values.
Does the thing the order comes from have to be valid? No.
I don't think what Druff did was objectively wrong because I don't believe that morals are objective, or should be construed as such, and I think social contract agreements are the closest we can ever get to moral objectivity. Functionally, it can be just as good as them being objective.
For example, most (if not all) non-murderers would agree that murder is generally an affront to morality. However, many of us non-murderers could conceive of a hypothetical situation in which cold-blooded murder might be justifiable, but still wouldn't be legal. Of course, the laws kind of have to be as black-and-white as possible on something like that, otherwise murderers would get off on the grounds of the jury agreeing with them that the murdered deserved it. Really, a jury could actually do that now; they just couldn't say that is the reason for the acquittal.
I'm not suggesting that I am better at debating morality than Christians, or any other theists. I am suggesting that I go on the attack against Evangelicals much in the way that they morally attack/critique/judge people who are not them and am playing by their own rules and using their own weapons in so doing. I also want to make it clear that I don't literally mean every single Evangelical; many of them are very good people who are not judgmental and would not use laws to restrict the actions of others when, in my view, there's not enough of a supermajority for those laws to be justified by social contract.
That said, I am a pragmatist. Dan Druff's actions have yielded a consequence, and as a result of that consequences, he apologized. He acknowledged why that consequence happened and he also acknowledged how others might feel about his words. If Dan Druff had made those posts and nobody had expressed discontentment with them, then there would likely not have been an apology. Why would there have been?
I'm also as close to a Free Speech absolutist as it gets, so I don't think Druff did a moral wrong in any context. I don't think that religious people (openly and vocally) judging the lifestyles of non-religious people is morally wrong; I think that it is unproductive, hypocritical, fosters resentment and drives some people away from the very lifestyles that the religious people would prefer they be leading.
That is what I question. If I wanted you to try out a particular restaurant, and I know this isn't a great metaphor, would you be more likely to do so if I told you how delicious the food at the restaurant I wanted you to try is, and how happy I am eating there, or if I asked you what your favorite restaurant is and spent the better part of an hour shitting on everything about it?
To be clear: I wasn't judging what I perceived as Druff's judgment when I said, "Naughty, naughty," I just said that because I thought it was funny. It also seemed appropriate given the fact that he, figuratively, took a little smack on the hand for that one.
I briefly commented on Druff's faith just by way of pointing out that he is imperfect by the standard he should try to uphold, according to himself, or...at least...according to many of them. Voltaire is instructive in that we must cultivate our own gardens. You could also look to Matthew 7, if you prefer the Bible as a source. As far as the Jewish faith; I am not well-versed enough to point specifically to something there.
Of course, it would seem impossible to totally avoid judgment. After all, even non-vocalized thoughts about one thing or another still constitute a form of judgment. That's not what Matthew 7 suggests, though. What it suggests is that we should not condemn the actions of others...which I think, while subjective, would be a positive moral value for people to uphold.
"Condemnation," and what constitutes it, is obviously going to be extremely subjective. Methodists, for example, tend to be more hesitant to condemn, based on my observations, than do the Evangelicals.
Anyway, that's why I would stay away from negatively remarking on lifestyle choices that are not our own, and have no victims, if those remarks could even be construed as negative. Any such remarks are simply not, as far as I can tell, going to lead to any sort of desired outcome and have the most likely result of fostering resentment for the speaker and/or backlash. Rather than condemn, one should simply ignore; if one cannot ignore, then one can make positive comments about their own lifestyle and why they see it as preferable.
Are they morally required to ignore? No. Hell, I don't even think they are morally required not to condemn; not according to me, anyway. I think ignoring, or, at least, not condemning are more likely to avoid negative outcomes than condemning people is going to do, but that's just my opinion.
Anyway, I'm not particularly arrogant on the subject of morality. Far from it. I don't even have sufficient moral conviction in anything to ever be arrogant, in that regard.
But, I do hate hypocrisy whilst admitting that I am a hypocrite in this regard.
Thank you for your post. I know what you did and you are quite correct. I should leave the Evangelicals alone unless I am confronting them directly or in defense of myself or another.
After all, what I think yields the best likely outcomes is people leaving one another the fuck alone anyway.
ADDED: I disagree with the last statement, but only because I do not believe in, "Truth," the way I think you are using the word.
Last edited by Mission146; 05-09-2023 at 10:25 AM.
Well, I had typed something out and then tried to add a smiley face. When I did that, this 1997 software put me in an alternate universe and erased everything. Anyway, I just wanted to say I appreciate your response. If you don't have a PhD in something, I would be shocked. I don't want to hijack this thread any further, so I will just say thank you for being honest and humble about your world view. A lot of non theist are not consistent with their view on objective moral values and duties. In the words of my favorite actor Bill Bixby: Take care, my friend.
There is actually a recover option here, where if you start the post again, there is a button the bottom left of the text box which you can press to auto-recover most of what you previously typed. Too late now, though.
By the way, let's say in an alternate universe, Lindsey brings the concern to me privately and says, "This is really insulting to me, and I'd like you to take it down."
Let's further say that in this universe, Lindsey promises that either way she will not make the matter public, nor will she badmouth me to anyone, even if I refuse to do it.
Would I have taken it down and apologized?
Yes. Because the point of the post wasn't to hurt or mock Lindsey -- it was to discuss the backstory of a situation where a man at the table had acted rudely toward her. So if she told me that she felt the post was hurtful and wanted it down, I would have both removed it and apologized, even if there was no threat of a public shaming for refusing.
Now, in our universe she brought it out publicly, so there was no such discussion. That was her right to do, as my post was public in the first place, so it is reasonable to call it out in public as well.
I'm just stating that I would have also removed it and apologized even if it were just a 1-on-1 conversation between us, where she indicated it was hurtful.
I have removed or modified posts here before when people have privately messaged me and asked me to do so. I am pretty accommodating with that, unless it's about a big story or a scam. I tend to only refuse to remove posts/threads about people when it's an attempt by the person to cover up bad behavior, such as a scammer asking me to remove what looks like a credible allegation about them.
Additionally, had that guy Stan asked me to remove the thread because he looked bad for calling Lindsey names, I also wouldn't have removed it, unless he presented reasonable evidence that the claims about him weren't true. So I'll also refuse to remove posts if it's about someone's bad behavior which seems to be likely true, even if that bad behavior doesn't involve scamming.
What about that flashing Amazon banner you have asked folks to click at the bottom of the page? And the stakes you pull for the WSOP? Not saying you are getting rich here, but this whole you operate the site at a loss is just not accurate. You've done just fine here over the years.Lol yes, I probably mentioned it.
It's actually a relevant thing to mention because I don't want people unfamiliar with the site believing I was posting any of this for clicks or profit.
Here there is no profit to be had, since it's a non-monetized site, and I am not selling any product or service.
If Druff put all his efforts that he puts in here to a job, he would have made infinitely more.
It is at a loss. Druff is our Tucker.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
Ronald Reagan
Brothers it's time to help rebuild Druff's image now that he's been reduced to the biggest incel misogynist in the game and was cucked into apologizing to a woman by Brother Jaffe.
I for one am committing to kindness going forward and fully expect others to follow suit.
PokerFraudAlert...will never censor your claims, even if they're against one of our sponsors. In addition to providing you an open forum report fraud within the poker community, we will also analyze your claims with a clear head an unbiased point of view. And, of course, the accused will always have the floor to defend themselves.-Dan Druff
not reading this page of the thread except Sloppy Joe
The site has run at a loss. If you add up the brief sponsorships, the Amazon banner money, and the markup I collected from WSOP pieces (which I haven't sold for a few years now), the site has still lost by a wide margin.What about that flashing Amazon banner you have asked folks to click at the bottom of the page? And the stakes you pull for the WSOP? Not saying you are getting rich here, but this whole you operate the site at a loss is just not accurate. You've done just fine here over the years.
The site has run at a loss..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
