Bone issues “Notice”- stop being libertarian

[WillFarnaby]

I must have hurt Moderator Bone’s feelings at some point.

He is following me around and telling me to stay on topic. I’m always on topic. What he is “done with” is me addressing the topic through a libertarian framework. He hasn’t complained about others’ addressing topics through a progressive or liberal framework. Of course not. That would be silly. He similarly doesn’t have a problem with posters repeatedly addressing topics through a “Trump is a white supremacist” framework. Why would he? If the poster has a certain point of view on a topic, what is the harm in addressing political topics through the framework of a political theory?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=21736908&postcount=21

Evil post:
“Electing an average joe would be the equivalent of handing over the government to the most conniving bureaucrats and operatives, so there is no surprise the authoritarian statists of the SDMB would choose this option. Even Trump’s hard-headedness is no match for his advisors who have basically convinced him to do a 180 on things like defunding NATO, furthering detente with Russia, and withdrawing from the wars.

The average joe would need to be strong-willed, knowledgeable, and moral. Unfortunately the only moral option for a person like this is to turn down the presidency. The problem is the presidency itself, not so much who is president.”

Bone’s “notice”:
“This is fair notice to you. I’m done with you interjecting your pet topic of statism or authoritarianism or the combination in unrelated threads, as well as passive aggressive denigrating the board. This goes for this thread, and all other threads in GD and Elections. I am bookmarking this post and If you do this again, you will be warned.

I have also sent you this via PM.”

Ok so I can stop denigrating the board outside of the pit. That seems fair, I guess that is a violation of a rule, or maybe he’s just “done with” it. Either way I don’t care.

What he seems to be doing is also forbidding me from addressing topics using an anti-authoritarian or anti-statist framework. If this is the case, he may as well commence with the banning, because I have no intention of addressing topics in any other way.

[Grrr]

@WillFarnaby

.

What he seems to be doing is also forbidding me from addressing topics using an anti-authoritarian or anti-statist framework. If this is the case, he may as well commence with the banning, because I have no intention of addressing topics in any other way.

This should be fun to watch.

[glee]

@WillFarnaby

I must have hurt Moderator Bone’s feelings at some point.

Nah, you mean your feelings are hurt.

@WillFarnaby

He is following me around…

No, he isn’t. It’s all in your head. :eek:

@WillFarnaby

… and telling me to stay on topic. I’m always on topic.

No, you’re not. :smack:

[Jonathan_Chance]

The operative rule here is really this one:

From the Registration Agreement

Do not post spam, including but not limited to advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, solicitations, offers to trade or barter, charitable appeals, or other messages primarily intended to promote a cause, venture, organization, event (except Straight Dope-related events), website, or other entity or activity, whether or not money is involved. Do not post spam in your signature or send it via the SDMB’s “private message” feature.** Do not post the same or similar messages or threads to multiple forums; multiple threads on the same topic; or an excessive number of threads on any topic within a limited period of time.** Do not start threads expressly for the purpose of meeting other posters for romantic or sexual purposes. We will notify the Internet service provider of any party posting objectionable messages.

Emphasis mine.

I won’t speak for Bone, of course, but that’s my take on it. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I encourage that. But you appear willing to jump on your hobbyhorse of complaining about statism and authoritarianism at any and all opportunities. Perhaps you should reconsider that.

[JRDelirious]

@WillFarnaby

I’m always on topic.

You’re always on YOUR topic.

[madmonk28]

He’s not “following you around” so much as being the moderator. Also, don’t you think that this part of your comment “…there is no surprise the authoritarian statists of the SDMB would choose this option,” is likely the most problematic? If you’re intention is to call everyone here authoritarian statists in every post, you should expect some push back. We are authoritarians, after all.

ETA: remember that guy who always worked his love of bondage into every post until he was told to knock it off? It’s like that, but with libertarianism.

[VinylTurnip]

The safe word is “Boomer.”

[WillFarnaby]

@Jonathan_Chance

The operative rule here is really this one:

Emphasis mine.

I won’t speak for Bone, of course, but that’s my take on it. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I encourage that. But you appear willing to jump on your hobbyhorse of complaining about statism and authoritarianism at any and all opportunities. Perhaps you should reconsider that.

Ok so where else did I post a similar message to the one I posted in the OP? Of course I never did such a thing, unless of course someone specifically asked about average joes becoming president.

Most of your bolded quote specifically deals with starting threads. To suggest that taking a libertarian position in multiple threads is against the rules you quoted is a bit of a stretch. Is taking a progressive position in multiple threads similarly against the rules? Anti-Trump position? Climate change hobbyhorses abound. “Bigotry” hobbyhorses abound.

I can see getting a warning for the derogatory SDMB comment, but it seems he also snuck in the bit about being forbidden to discuss my political philosophy in threads about politics and political philosophy. I guess I’ll just see how it plays out. If nobody is interested in how the libertarian position is applied to current and perennial topics, I can understand why it would be forbidden. This isn’t a charity after all.

[wolfpup]

@WillFarnaby

What he seems to be doing is also forbidding me from addressing topics using an anti-authoritarian or anti-statist framework. If this is the case, he may as well commence with the banning, because I have no intention of addressing topics in any other way.

You have to reconcile this view with the fact that there are other libertarians on this board who don’t seem to have this problem. In fact, while I can’t speak for Bone, I think when posting as a poster and not a mod he tends to have libertarian views himself (here, for example). So it seems awfully strange to accuse him of some nefarious bias where he allegedly tells you to “stop being libertarian”. The problem seems to be that you’re so obsessive and extremist about your beliefs that you hijack and disrupt unrelated threads. IOW, the problem is not the moderation, the problem is you.

[Knowed_Out]

How about this: try not being a jerk.

There’s ways of expressing your opinions without being so condescending. If you had left out “so there is no surprise the authoritarian statists of the SDMB would choose this option,” you wouldn’t have gotten mod-slapped.

I myself am fine with the libertarian position. Just don’t be such a prick when you express it.

[Bone]

@WillFarnaby

What he seems to be doing is also forbidding me from addressing topics using an anti-authoritarian or anti-statist framework. If this is the case, he may as well commence with the banning, because I have no intention of addressing topics in any other way.

There is this school of thought among some of the mods, that if posters ask to be banned, we should grant their wish. I don’t necessarily subscribe to this notion myself.

In any event, I’m glad you received the note. If a person talks about the efficacy of changing the oil in your car every 3,000 miles, and whether that is ultimately beneficial, it would be a violation of the directive if you were to respond along the lines of, “the statists that try to utilize government force to further entrench corporate oligarchy with their frequent oil change propaganda use the recommendation as a thinly disguised ruse to hide their authoritarian nature.” This is an exaggeration of how I view some of your offerings.

**JC **has it exactly right in post #4. Introducing or steering unrelated threads towards your pet topic is violative of the section he quoted. Nothing prevents you from posting about statism, authoritarianism, etc. in related threads or starting threads of that nature. If the thread is “what is the best political philosophy?” then go nuts. If the thread is, “do you like Harris or Biden better?” then I’d say tread carefully and be sure what you offer is on topic. Probably not a viable thread to espouse the virtues of Libertariansim.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Knowed_Out

How about this: try not being a jerk.

There’s ways of expressing your opinions without being so condescending. If you had left out “so there is no surprise the authoritarian statists of the SDMB would choose this option,” you wouldn’t have gotten mod-slapped.

I myself am fine with the libertarian position. Just don’t be such a prick when you express it.

Yup. Farnaby, you tend to offer your position in extremely hostile and contemptuous language, presupposing that the only reason people disagree with you is because they support tyranny, or because they’re very stupid.

I have long discussions with a libertarian elsewhere. She’s also pretty extreme, to my eyes, but she focuses on understanding the positions of the folks she’s talking with, and on treating people with respect.

Her posts, unlike yours, don’t make me roll my eyes and hit the page-down button. I know that reading what she writes isn’t just inviting nasty hostility into my life.

[WillFarnaby]

@wolfpup

You have to reconcile this view with the fact that there are other libertarians on this board who don’t seem to have this problem. In fact, while I can’t speak for Bone, I think when posting as a poster and not a mod he tends to have libertarian views himself (here, for example). So it seems awfully strange to accuse him of some nefarious bias where he allegedly tells you to “stop being libertarian”. The problem seems to be that you’re so obsessive and extremist about your beliefs that you hijack and disrupt unrelated threads. IOW, the problem is not the moderation, the problem is you.

No it appears maybe the consistency is the problem. It is ok to have a libertarian position on some things as long as you don’t have them across the board.

@Knowed_Out

How about this: try not being a jerk.

There’s ways of expressing your opinions without being so condescending. If you had left out “so there is no surprise the authoritarian statists of the SDMB would choose this option,” you wouldn’t have gotten mod-slapped.

I myself am fine with the libertarian position. Just don’t be such a prick when you express it.

Yes that sentence deserved a warning perhaps. Unfortunately he erred when he strayed from that.

@Bone

If a person talks about the efficacy of changing the oil in your car every 3,000 miles, and whether that is ultimately beneficial, it would be a violation of the directive if you were to respond along the lines of, “the statists that try to utilize government force to further entrench corporate oligarchy with their frequent oil change propaganda use the recommendation as a thinly disguised ruse to hide their authoritarian nature.” This is an exaggeration of how I view some of your offerings.

That’s just it. An exaggeration. You can exaggerate any statement into an unreasonable one, which if I understand your notice, will be your intended behavior in the future.

**JC **has it exactly right in post #4. Introducing or steering unrelated threads towards your pet topic is violative of the section he quoted. Nothing prevents you from posting about statism, authoritarianism, etc. in related threads or starting threads of that nature. If the thread is “what is the best political philosophy?” then go nuts. If the thread is, “do you like Harris or Biden better?” then I’d say tread carefully and be sure what you offer is on topic. Probably not a viable thread to espouse the virtues of Libertariansim.

So I can’t say “I would choose Biden because overall he is less statist.”

Other posters are free to say “I would choose Harris because she is more progressive.”

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Yup. Farnaby, you tend to offer your position in extremely hostile and contemptuous language, presupposing that the only reason people disagree with you is because they support tyranny, or because they’re very stupid.

I have long discussions with a libertarian elsewhere. She’s also pretty extreme, to my eyes, but she focuses on understanding the positions of the folks she’s talking with, and on treating people with respect.

Her posts, unlike yours, don’t make me roll my eyes and hit the page-down button. I know that reading what she writes isn’t just inviting nasty hostility into my life.

Same here. Liberals elsewhere are reasonable and much more open-minded.

[Bone]

@WillFarnaby

So I can’t say “I would choose Biden because overall he is less statist.”

I think that would be fine. For other matters, we’ll just have to see how it goes depending on context. I forgot to comment on this part:

@WillFarnaby

He is following me around and telling me to stay on topic.

While I do read most of the posts made, there are those that I miss or that I skip for various reasons. I also encourage everyone to stay on topic. We are a message board organized into different forums, and many different threads. It makes the reading experience more enjoyable to be organized in a certain way, and keeping things on topic is one of the roles of the moderation staff. But rather than follow you around, what the notice does is allow others to take note of any potentially offending behavior and flag it for review.

[Telemark]

@WillFarnaby

You can exaggerate any statement into an unreasonable one

You seem intent on proving this point.

[WillFarnaby]

@Bone

I think that would be fine. For other matters, we’ll just have to see how it goes depending on context. I forgot to comment on this part:
While I do read most of the posts made, there are those that I miss or that I skip for various reasons. I also encourage everyone to stay on topic. We are a message board organized into different forums, and many different threads. It makes the reading experience more enjoyable to be organized in a certain way, and keeping things on topic is one of the roles of the moderation staff. But rather than follow you around, what the notice does is allow others to take note of any potentially offending behavior and flag it for review.

But I can’t say that electing an average Joe would be bad because he/she would be manipulated by conniving authoritarian bureaucrats.

Yes the rule is as clear as mud.

[Superdude]

@WillFarnaby

No it appears maybe the consistency is the problem. It is ok to have a libertarian position on some things as long as you don’t have them across the board.

No, the problem is that you frame every argument through that lens, even if it’s out of place.

Here’s a pretty decent representation: In this, you’re Bart, the rest of the SDMB is Homer, and “pain” is libertarianism.

ETA: this is not intended as an insult. It’s just that you inject it into every thread, even when it’s unnecessary and/or unwanted.

[WillFarnaby]

@Superdude

No, the problem is that you frame every argument through that lens, even if it’s out of place.

Here’s a pretty decent representation: In this, you’re Bart, the rest of the SDMB is Homer, and “pain” is libertarianism.

ETA: this is not intended as an insult. It’s just that you inject it into every thread, even when it’s unnecessary and/or unwanted.

Evaluating potential presidents is well within the scope of libertarian theory. Not out of place at all.

[Jonathan_Chance]

That may or may not be true.

Both Bone and I have told you what the problem is. You feel a need to dispute it. I do not, nor shall from this point on.

Whether you agree with it or not, the edict stands. Violate it at your own risk. If you find it vague, perhaps that’s a feature and not a bug. Again, you may disagree. It doesn’t matter.

Learn, adapt, or you may not enjoy the outcome.

This thread is closed.