CapeXit 2

[Brian_G]

Phil tends to get things done? Really? You're actually going to say that with a straight face and not pee in your broekies?

Compared to the others within CIM in the past, for sure he does. At least since he started making his voice heard enough.
This period is just a quiet preparation one, my money's on that for sure.

 

[vigras rojara]

I suspect they're holding back for a number of reasons, think you saw my early post about it but there's other factors too - like the element of surprise, or needed a small issue to develop further first. But I don't know, you may be right instead of course.

Phil tends to get things done and with fair sense (yes, even the false border stunt had some sense to it ), and he did make a firm announcement about doing a referendum, which I doubt he did without first preparing well.
Actually hope I'm wrong here, would prefer the referendum to be delayed (also covered earlier).

In not trying to be funny, but if what we're seeing is "Phil getting things done".....

 

[ToxicBunny]

Compared to the others within CIM in the past, for sure he does. At least since he started making his voice heard enough.
This period is just a quiet preparation one, my money's on that for sure.

Thats a very low bar Brian, its comparing doing nothing to doing fsckall.

 

[Brian_G]

I think insulting the criminally-minded, wherever they exist, is perfectly acceptable.

Some thoughts on that;

Play the ball, not the man - they could be flexible, their reasoning could be (more) sound if you had insight into that, and you may even be wrong about them altogether.

BTW, is there some loss of ability to debate by not being able to kick your opponents verbally?

 

[Cray]

When someone touts name-calling as uncivil behavior, and then proceeds to make criminal accusations of leaders of the CIM, in public.... that's where the stench of BS becomes overwhelming.

Shem, the dude is a politician and public figure, it goes with the territory.

The 'I insist on civil behavior,' is but a waver-thin veneer that covers the need to reserve the aggression of State power to silence people.

It has nothing to do with the state. You are freely using the resources of a private company but you feel that you don't need to follow their rules of behaviour. Have asked you this before, the owners of this forum don't want participants to engage in name calling yet you think this doesn't apply to you - so you are violating the spirit of free association that you hold dear because you are actively breaking their rules, pretty hypocritical don't you think?

If you defend a monopoly accreditor, you are doing exactly that..... retaining the use of violent force, in case you encounter a stronger argument that makes a demand on your ability to adapt to competing ideas. A concession which you cannot - in your own biological reductionist estimation - afford to make.

I think insulting the criminally-minded, wherever they exist, is perfectly acceptable.

Perhaps you should fund your own forum then because the people who own and run this one clearly disagree with you. And I wouldn't trust your judgement of "criminally-minded " in the slightest.

 

[vigras rojara]

Thats a very low bar Brian, its comparing doing nothing to doing fsckall.

On a busy day Phil does fsckall, on a quiet day he does less than fsckall.

One day if I own a pet sloth, I will name it Phil.

 

[Brian_G]

In not trying to be funny, but if what we're seeing is "Phil getting things done".....

Sheesh guys, you've really forgotten his publicity stunts, massive amounts of debates, forming of a political party, challenging and meeting with presidents or their associates, etc., etc., ....... there's no pleasing some people.

As you know, I've also been concerned about his recent slow pace, but I have to HOPE there's logic behind it. You guys have no interest in him really (most of the time) , so of course you're more critical.
But I predict your attitudes are going to change in time..

 

[ToxicBunny]

On a busy day Phil does fsckall, on a quiet day he does less than fsckall.

One day if I own a pet sloth, I will name it Phil.

Thats nasty though. Sloths are speed demons in comparison to Phil.

**EDIT** and they're also cute... but that is just an aside.

 

[lexity]

"Cucks" is a really ugly one though...

Why?

Effective is beautiful.

The Cuckold analogue highlights the wooing of women by the political-class, into abandoning her feminine role as specialist family nurturer.

The State has had enormous success in this respect.

The typical progressive career woman, has zero appetite for Cape Independence. She derives legal privilege through the State's imposing of artificial barriers labelled 'equality'.

I highlighted this trend in the thread 'Identity Politics: What is it? What are some examples?', that draws attention to the media-darling, ex-Springbok medic Rene Naylor, who came out looking for State privilege to ensure women were more 'equally' represented in all areas

'For women to see women in certain positions gives them hope. Hope is not enough we need people in positions of power to give women opportunities [...] the numbers are not looking good[in men's Springbok rugby] once I'm gone [..]'.

See link:

https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/identity-politics-what-is-it-what-are-some-examples.1307441/post-33561427.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Sheesh guys, you've really forgotten his publicity stunts, massive amounts of debates, forming of a political party, challenging and meeting with presidents or their associates, etc., etc., ....... there's no pleasing some people.

As you know, I've also been concerned about his recent slow pace, but I have to HOPE there's logic behind it. You guys have no interest in him really (most of the time) , so of course you're more critical.
But I predict your attitudes are going to change in time..

We haven't forgotten them, they were pointless and miniscule at the time, and have only diminished with time. The political party was a dismal failure (as largely expected).

The slow pace is very likely due to minimal financial backing, amongst other items which limit the effectiveness of the idea.

Since we seem to be grounded in some version of reality, I doubt my attitude towards Phil-muh-pockets is going to change, or the idea of an independent Cape until some significant reality and truth is injected into the organisation.

 

[Brian_G]

Thats nasty though. Sloths are speed demons in comparison to Phil.

And is sloth a naughty word? Maybe we shouldn't use it

 

[ToxicBunny]

And is sloth a naughty word? Maybe we shouldn't use it

Huh?

 

[Brian_G]

I doubt my attitude towards Phil-muh-pockets is going to change, or the idea of an independent Cape until some significant reality and truth is injected into the organisation.

Or maybe it's actually just a delay until the WC-ians are triggered enough to convert their passion into action.

By all means, you guys do you, though I find it pointless in the endless debates you want to have about these opinions, so I leave that to Lex and any others who could be bothered.

Huh?

Well, where do we draw the line regarding verbal insults now?...

 

[ToxicBunny]

Well, where do we draw the line regarding verbal insults now?...

See now this is a very weird slippery slope that you would want to embark on in my opinion.

If a word can offend a person, then everyone may as well just go mute to never offend anyone.

 

[Brian_G]

Why?

Effective is beautiful.

The Cuckold analogue highlights the wooing of women by the political-class, into abandoning her feminine role as specialist family nurturer.

The State has had enormous success in this respect.

The typical progressive career woman, has zero appetite for Cape Independence. She derives legal privilege through the State's imposing of artificial barriers labelled 'equality'.

I highlighted this trend in the thread 'Identity Politics: What is it? What are some examples?', that draws attention to the media-darling, ex-Springbok medic Rene Naylor, who came out looking for State privilege to ensure women were more 'equally' represented in all areas



See link:

https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/threads/identity-politics-what-is-it-what-are-some-examples.1307441/post-33561427.

Sure Lex

But you know that's not how most would ever understand seeing the word in use here (when it was allowed).

Anyway no point debating further IMO,

 

[Brian_G]

See now this is a very weird slippery slope that you would want to embark on in my opinion.

If a word can offend a person, then everyone may as well just go mute to never offend anyone.

Too true.

My last on the subject for now, got things to do - we've been asked to be more civil, that's all we need try do. I was just stretching the point, as we always do in these secession threads, all of us.

 

[lexity]

Some thoughts on that;

Play the ball, not the man

By definition, the criminally minded are not playing ball.

That's the whole point i.e. if you play ball a non-ball-player they will suck every joule of energy from you, and spit you out when you are no longer useful to them in distracting from their real game.

They are not here to engage in discourse alone. They are here to muddy the waters. That should be obvious after years of repetitive stronger-argument wins having zero effect on them.

- they could be flexible, their reasoning could be (more) sound if you had insight into that, and you may even be wrong about them altogether.

They do not operate on the basis of reasoning. They are in a reactive mindset. They are convinced you have an unfair advantage over them (see 'mytheory' post).

BTW, is there some loss of ability to debate by not being able to kick your opponents verbally?

Debate takes 2 willing participants where neither reserves a one-sided privilege to bring a gun into the debating arena.

Pinkos are above this requirement.

It should be obvious, by now.

p.s. the last time I made this point, a few days later, on Sep 10th 2025, someone or some group (who could not bear the idea that they would be stuck having no other means to be right) literally assassinated a high-profile political figure inviting a nation-wide debate where everyone had to rely on the-strongest-argument-wins rule.

 

[lexity]

Sure Lex

But you know that's not how most would ever understand seeing the word in use here (when it was allowed).

Anyway no point debating further IMO,

When it comes to nurturing families, the opinion of the childless is not worth nothing, but the weight it carries in terms of skin in the game, is fairly low on the scale.

It's more obvious when you see them being nonchalant on/indifferent towards the destruction of the family unit.

 

[Brian_G]

No time for depth here, will just apply my thinking to your first set of answers which should be enough.

By definition, the criminally minded are not playing ball.

Two wrongs definitely don't make a right. And again, you (usually) can't prove intent to that degree... although you do tend to jump to conclusions more than most (at times).

That's the whole point i.e. if you play ball a non-ball-player they will suck every joule of energy from you, and spit you out when you are no longer useful to them in distracting from their real game.

IMO you're just burning up more fuel by turning to the anger method. I usually don't, yet am able to manage with my available energy just fine....

Not that I'm suggesting you should change from what you deem you need to be, but you're in a private public arena here, so...

They are not here to engage in discourse alone. They are here to muddy the waters. That should be obvious after years of repetitive stronger-argument wins having zero effect on them.

Sure, as you know I do know that the worst of them are that negative (or have an agenda). Doesn't have to change the way we play the game though.


That all said, I think those of us siding on this viewpoint (Mod(s) included) are being a bit too idealistic about it too, as we know it is a new public concern regarding the way its premise is being abused when it comes to freedom of speech in SA now.
But that is our playing field in this thread now as well, so let's just make the most of it.

Later..

 

[lexity]

When someone touts name-calling as uncivil behavior, and then proceeds to make criminal accusations of leaders of the CIM, in public.... that's where the stench of BS becomes overwhelming.

Shem, the dude is a politician and public figure, it goes with the territory.

Hang-on... weren't you the one distancing himself from accusations of Phil Craig being a 'grifter,' just a few pages back?

Suddenly, despite pinko withdrawals of such anti-social branding, it's okay again.