I’m sorry, but if you believe those posts were made for no purpose other than to share an amusing story, you are being extraordinarily naive.
I do believe that, and I can’t stop you from thinking I am naïve if you are determined to feel that way. <shrug>
I don’t think you’re naive, and I don’t think you actually give a shit about Bannedman Mike. I think he’s just a convenient stalking horse for you.
The thing is, it doesn’t really matter whether he’s posting extremely jerkish things because he’s a jerk and honestly finds them amusing, or he’s making them up and trolling just in order to get a reaction. He’s either a jerk or a troll, so there’s really no functional difference.
I’d relate it more to it being an inaccurate summary of what has actually been said.
People who use it aren’t trying to describe reality. They’re using it to attempt reductio ad absurdum on your position.
It’s funny because I don’t hang 'round these parts much, so I don’t know the person, and I immediately read the thread as not-so-thinly veiled racism. Then I read other posts of his and have ruled this person a confirmed troll. :bangs gavel:
But the poster did say that he visits lots of boards and decides whether he likes a particular board. If he does, he gets a feel for the mods, what the rules are and how far he can skirt them. If he doesn’t like the board, then he shits all over it.
I think once you’ve made such a statement, your posts deserve extra scrutiny.
If I understand the ruling correctly, but for this admission of the poster and his past behavior, the thread either would not have been modded or gently modded. I don’t think it should have been modded if someone else posted that, but so goes the modern SDMB.
But given the past declaration, it gave the mods good reason to believe that the story was horseshit and he was seeing how many things he could say that were borderline insulting to blacks and get away with it.
Stalking horse? My, how conspiratorial. :rolleyes:
It’s really much simpler than you are painting it, and you really ought to know better. I am an ardent advocate of free expression, of the Millsian sort. (So much so that when Kimstu pointed out that something I was saying was in conflict with that philosophy, I acknowledged she was right and changed my ways.)
So no: I don’t give a shit about Mike as a person. He seems like someone I would never want to be friends or even acquaintances with in real life. But that is hardly relevant to my yen for free expression.
I am also a stickler for not misusing words. From the beginning of my participation in this thread, my main agenda has been not so much to bring Mike back but to be honest about why he was really banned. Calling him a “troll” makes it easier than admitting that he is who he is, and the moderators and most posters don’t like who he is. Because then you are admitting that you really only want certain kinds of people around here.
And what kinds of people would that be?
Lots of different kinds, but not the uncouth kind that Mike is.
Banning racially insulting troll kinds of people. I can live with that.
Such as non-jerks and non-trolls.
This is absolutely true. It’s in the Registration Agreement, in fact.
Then announce that he was banned for being a jerk.
I’m pretty sure what they don’t want are trolls and jerks. If they were targeting the uncouth, then why am I sti
Lolz
On the serious side, if what you claim is true and The Powers That Be are specifically targeting the “uncouth” for bannination, then can you show us other examples of people that were banned for this reason?
It’s not a conspiracy if you’re the only one doing it.
Yes, I’m well aware of what’s behind the horse cutout.
Yes, the non-trollish sort.
Mike *was *a jerk. And trolling was *how *he jerked.
What difference does it make to you whether it was announced he was banned for being a troll or a jerk? The two aren’t always mutually exclusive.
So, stalking horse for what exactly?