Partially correct. I maintain that is a combination of both his posting style and his politics. That there wouldn’t be near (or any of) the fervor against him if he leaned the other way. That the members here strongly lean one way and the mods, to a lesser extent, do, as well.
Right. Which is why none of the vast left-wing conspirators on this board ever have anything bad to say about Der Trihs or BrianGlutton.
I don’t think that I am too fringe, but I’m sure that 2.5 doesn’t think he is either.
I’m sure that the mods just didn’t rush into this and they have granted people a lot of leeway when it wasn’t deserved. Hell, after the thread about vaginal lubrication in pre-pubescent girls, I would have banned his ass unless he had a very good reason for asking that (and I think he did have some crazy, but legitimate reason for wanting to know).
But here is a question. Suppose I believed, just like 2.5 does, that a person convicted of a felony should be put to death. Let’s say I really and honestly believe that. Should I not post such a thing here for fear of being branded a jerk or troll or whatever the official line on 2.5 is?
We need a new catch-phrase, to reduce keyboarding the same song over and over, and for he concurrent rellief to the hamsters. Some shorthand for “Conservatives don’t get a fair shake on the Boards because the lefties are stifling dissent with their tofu jackboots, weep, wail, moan…”
Any suggestions?
Do you think advocating the death penalty for all felonies is a conservative position? I can’t think of any prominent conservative who takes it. It seems more like a batshit insane proposition that no one would hold unless they were trying to get a rise out of people.
This is just my view, but personally I think people who genuinely hold unusual beliefs understand they’re unusual beliefs, and that will come across if they debate honestly. It didn’t with 2.5, who appeared to be blind to the fact that he held many unpopular opinions, which indicates either he’s debating in bad faith or he’s debating stupidly, which can be difficult to distinguish from bad faith.
**2.5 ** doesn’t believe that.
We have had white supremacists and others with extreme views defending their positions in GD. If you honestly believe that - or even if you want to take a Devil’s Advocate position - I wouldn’t see a problem with it.
I’ve posted quite of bit of “fringey” stuff on this board, and I think the best way to go about it without being branded a jerk or a troll is to start with, yeah, some disclaimers. Or at least, clarifications and qualifications. Some might see this as pussyfooting bullshit. I prefer to think of it as clear communication skills.
Lots of, “in my experience” and “it seems to be, although I’m willing to learn otherwise” or “okay, random weird thought, I swear I’m not a pedophile…” or “You know, this could be just my anger talking, but did you ever think…” or “I’m betting this will be an unpopular opinion, but…” might go a long way to making fringe posters more palatable.
You know…in *my *experience. 
Just acknowledging your fringiness goes a long way to making people listen and actually debate in earnest. If nothing else, it pre-empts the 2 dozen posts which are nothing but accusations of trollery. In screenwriting, they call this “hanging a lantern” - you have one of your characters point out a plot weakness so the audience doesn’t get stuck up on it. And then you move on to what the movie’s *really *about.
And why no posters with left-wing views have ever been banned or warned.
There’s nothing you can do to prevent people from calling you a dickhead or a jerk or troll or any other name in the Pit. But yes, it’s possible to express those views in a manner that doesn’t get you banned.
Kind of begs the question, don’t ya think?
[/quote]
No. It’s central to your opinion about this situation.
You just accused the administration of allowing politics to play part in our decision, and then say that an assurance that they didn’t “didn’t need to be said.” We have a range of political views among the moderation staff. There was no disagreement that 2.5 was trolling.
If we made our decisions based on clamor, he would have been banned within a few weeks of his first appearance. There are plenty of other posters who have been Pitted far more than 2.5 that are still around.
That’s not your accusation. You are accusing the administration of taking action based on political position, and that is just bullshit.
So which is it?
Frank can explain what distinction he’s making if he chooses to. But Frank agreed with the suspension.
Honestly, jtgain, how many official mod-hat-on warnings have you had from the moderators?
None? Well then, why are you pissing and moaning in fear over being banned?
You don’t get banned for one over the top comment. You get banned because you’ve been warned over and over again that you’re a douche and you need to stop being a douche, yet you keep on being a douche.
So if you haven’t been told multiple times to put a sock in your douchebaggery, then don’t worry about it.
He was a fucking troll, and he has been shut the fuck up.
Can I get a hosanna.
Not so. He has recieved a penitential rebuke, that he may reform and rejoin our select company, if he will abandon his douchebaggitude.
Actually, just mentioning the SDMB should do it. Though there are some unable to grasp even the most obvious.
No, that’s not close to what I’ve said. They’ve gotten slapped from their own side from time to time. DT, anyway. The only complaint I’ve seen leveled against BG is starting too many fucking OPs.
No I don’t. But it is off the charts on the right (not left) side. One explanation is to get a rise out of people. The other is to take an extreme position in order to get the center to move. This tactic is done in negotiations all the time.
But that was the question, was it. The question was to whether or not he was a troll. Nice weaseling though.
Why would you associate it with the batshit right? If I called for the death penalty for polluters, is that a batshit right notion also?