So the last straw on Stuntman Mike was him making a crack about “8 billion bullets” against Liberals, yet…
anomalous1 is allowed to repeatedly make statements to the effect that if people on the left keep being big meanies to people on the right, there will be bloodshed, but he doesn’t endorse this and is just being a realist?
And Miller threatens me a warning over this because I think those kinds of threats should be moderated and says it isn’t even close to violating a board rule?
Well then, if making threats of political bloodshed if people keep saying mean things to your side isn’t violating any rule, even if or because you couch them by claiming that you don’t support such things (even as you keep repeating it), then fuck this board and the people who moderate it.
…“to the effect” implies that this is your interpretation of anomalous1’s words, not their actual words. Can you quote/link to what was actually said? What thread is this? What forum is this?
Making a prediction is in no way, shape, or form an endorsement. Just like advocating a right is in no way an endorsement in a particular use of that right. Not difficult concepts.
Not quite accurate. The “8 billion bullets” comment that got a warning was from last February. The final straw was his post about code switching, not political violence.
Yes, that is, in fact, entirely within the rules. It’s not a threat to suggest that, if political rhetoric keeps escalating, it will lead to bloodshed. It’s not a threat to predict that one side of the conflict is more likely to win than the other. It’s certainly possible for either of these statements to be phrased in such a way that they can be read as threats. anomalous’s posts do not come anywhere near that line. The fact that he repeatedly and explicitly says he does not want violence is actually a significant part of that, as is the fact that he’s actually engaging in the thread. The post by Stuntman Mike was a one line drive-by, phrased using the first person - “We” have 8 billion bullets - which shifts the sentiment much further towards being owned by the poster. And, as always, different forums have different standards for what’s acceptable, and different mods have different ideas of where to draw the line in borderline cases.
No. I gave you a mod note because you were lecturing other posters on what is and is not against the rules, and threatening them with banning for not following them. That’s junior modding, and unlike the posts you reported, is actually against the board rules.
Making threats of political violence is certainly against the rules.
The problem you’ve got here is that’s not what was happening in that thread.
Since you phrased that “fuck you” as a conditional, and that conditional has plainly not been met, I’m going to give you a pass on the warning you would normally receive for insulting the moderation staff in ATMB.
I can’t find the post(s) they’re complaining about, and I’m tired of trying to wade through four pages of Pit shit, but this seems to be the salient point. For example, I can accurately predict that a bunch of people will shoot each other in Chicago this next weekend. Understanding that that’s extremely likely to happen, and saying so, is not an endorsement of those actions, nor is it “making threats”.
But that is not what he did. Here is the relevant portion of his post, which you cited in the note:
There is no lecture about what is against the rules, and definitely no threat of punishment. He simply voiced his personal opinion that the poster’s behavior should be against the rules.
If wishing something were against the rules is junior moderating, then half of ATMB is junior moderating.
Then that sounds like you have trouble with how the board works. It’s fairly trivial to click the link provided in this thread, and then click the arrows in the quote boxes to go up to the post in question.
I think it would be better to have asked for help than to make a comment about a post you have not actually read.
If everyone chimed in with “this shit should be against the rules” every time someone got incensed over a post, half the threads would go hopelessly off the rails. Chimera was junior modding. He can send a PM instead.
And I’ve got no beef with Chimera at all - posts good stuff much of the time. But call it like I see.
Chimera. I actually like you, your posts and the substance and opinions contained therein (present issue excluded). If I’ve personally offended you, I do apologize.
I do want to make it clear that I absolutely in no way shape, form, facet, thought process or context would ever support violence of any type, this includes political.
I want to reiterate that I was making a point to say, as others have above. That political violence begets political violence, and I was largely speaking within the realm of fighting at protests and the like. I was even agreeing, by acknowledgement, that the right wing, which I am a part, does have more imposing figures (due to age difference?), with less reservation of getting physical in comparison to others and actually legally carry firearms more than those of the other side. This is not something that was being lauded in that conversation, at all, I was just being practical in my observations and the observations of many others about the reality of the situation. I would have liked to conclude the thought in the pit but it was sidetracked by a barrage of replies and counters. So I apologize to everyone here for bringing it up here, I just wanted to clarify.
If in a heated exchange, by choice or variation in words, I gave an impression of what you (Chimera) described, I do sincerely apologize. Not intended.
Sorry for getting anyone else sucked into this stuff.
Agreed. Given that he easily could have given that comment a much less charitable interpretation and enforced repercussions it showed admirable restraint and class.
