My very first warning is by What_Exit. Of course it is a warning for something that shouldn’t be note worthy much less a warning.
The post that I was responding to which used dehumanizing language towards political opponents didn’t even get a note. My comment was as much on topic as most of the previous 100 or so topics the only difference is that my comment does not reflect the consensus of the board. A consensus which includes gendered insults towards republicans, the use of dehumanizing language towards republicans, advocation of violence against republicans, etc. The clear signal is you can participate in a thread even as a thread drifts towards the call for mass violence against one’s political opponents as long as one does not post in contradiction to the prevailing sentiment of the board.
Singling out my post for the subjective call of a hijack is farcical. Hell, even someone who directly insulted me in a subsequent post merely got a note. Furthermore, I believe some of the motivation for the warning is due to personal animus from what_exit that he has explicitly written on this board and others.
The post before you replied had the poster claim that “If the cultists want to rise up from their couches”
He is referring also to the ones that are currently threatening the FBI and other authorities, that includes Trump BTW.
As we are seeing so far, the poster is not directing violence to all Republicans. The violence would come from authorities dealing with the unhinged violent elements of the right, it is clearly not directed to all Republicans. It can be argued that it is way pass the time to realize that a good number of very influential republicans don’t deserve any respect when defending the indefensible with threats towards the American executive and judiciary powers.
Should that last “topics” be “posts”? Because the hell it wasn’t on topic. It was your tiresome hobby-horse. Note that I took the same post to task as you did, but did so in a way that didn’t bring my one-trick pony into the thread.
Your warning was 100% earned, and my only complaint is that it’s your first time getting warned for this behavior. Let’s hope it’s either the start of a trend (your getting warned for popping up with your exhausting tsking at da libs posts) or, better yet, the end of a trend (said posts).
It’s funny how the tone from the left changes when they are able to direct law enforcement and the military at their political enemies. Talks of eradication, dehumanizing language, etc. is a far cry from the disingenuous calls for defund the police and criminal justice reform. The problem wasn’t that police had powers or were using their powers unjustly. The problem was the dems and their regime weren’t in full control of the security apparatus.
There is a clear difference here: your post was about the other people who are currently participating in the thread. And it was clearly phrased in a way to try and piss them off, being snarky and condescending.
You’ve also misrepresented what was being said there. No one said anything about violence for being Republican. The statement was about those who would actually try to start a civil war over the FBI daring to investigate. This misinterpretation is obvious enough and common enough on your part that this sort of thing seems rather intentional.
In short, you went out of your way to misinterpret what people were saying so you could attack them. That you flimsily tried to disguise that to be an attack on “dems” doesn’t change it.
My only complaint is that I don’t think that calling a “hijack” does justice to the issue. Yes, it technically was one, but the issue is in the how, not the what.
The thread had already drifted into the realm of labeling political opponents with exceeding dehumanizing language. Do I seriously need to link every post preceding mine that did not strictly address the thread topic? Since the thread had already drifted addressing the dehumanizing language was not intended to be a hijack.
The fact that I got a warning for hijacking a thread that was already off topic to the point of calls for violence is my complaint and I do believe it is motivated in large part because the views I express are contrary to the majority of the most active members of the board and in part due to personal animus from the mod in question.
Whether or not I am a popular poster is irrelevant. In theory it should be irrelevant. In practice we know that’s not the case. Those of us to the right of Chairman Mao already have to self-censor. We know that. The calls to violence, the dehumanizing language, the gendered insults we know that we’d be banned in an instant if such language were directed at the left.
@octopus, you’re lucky I didn’t catch the flag. Your responses in that thread were so far from appropriate to its topic, I’d have argued for a temporary suspension.
Your post not only didn’t strictly address the thread topic, it was nowhere in the ball park.
You’ve said “dehumanizing language” about ten times, and I really have no idea what you are talking about. You’ll have to be more specific.
Opposing law enforcement when they act unlawfully and supporting law enforcement when they act lawfully is not inconsistency or hypocrisy.
Expressing the hope that law enforcement (and, god forbid it become necessary, the military) do their duty to counter any attempts at violent insurrection is not a “call for violence”.
Lowliest forms of life is pretty dehumanizing. I’m not asking for people to be warned or banned for expressing their opinion in a thread that has drifted. I am asking not to be warned for responding to such language after the drift. I do feel that it’s motivated by ideology.
That’s really what your attempted “gotcha” about dehumanizing language was about? In a perfect world, none of us would ever use any language that demeans anyone in any way at all. But when people exhibit despicable behavior and exhibit utter stupidity and willful ignorance day after day, it becomes difficult to stick to the perfect ideals of how we should talk about our fellow human beings. And there’s a world of difference between language directed at someone’s behavior (including their chosen political beliefs, when absurd and despicable) and attacking their identity. Trying to draw some kind of equivalence and claim hypocrisy here is a level of discourse barely above “But her emails”.
He was calling violent killers (or attempted killers), like that Ricky Shiffer asshole, the lowest form of life. And he was suggesting that law enforcement should harshly deal with that kind of criminal. You really find that objectionable, or hypocritical?
Because I was warned for responding to it. That’s why.
It’s not a gotch. It’s evidence that the thread had drifted substantially from the OT. I’m not saying that the drift should be modded. I’m saying my response to a thread that had drifted shouldn’t have been and only was due to the fact that it’s ideologically incongruent with the majority of the board.
I don’t find that objectionable and I am not questioning one’s language. I’m questioning my warning for responding to that post. Am I going to get warned or face the possibility of being warned or suspended anytime I respond to a post in a thread when the post that I respond to is not a strict address towards the OT? That’s a farcical double standard if that’s the case.
And if I have to second guess myself every time I respond to someone who isn’t strictly addressing the OT I find that exceedingly chilling and I feel it’s by design. Hari Sheldon even implied as much when he explicitly said he thought a particular post was trolling but since he agreed it with no problem. That sort of attitude among former and current mods doesn’t lead to a good atmosphere for robust debate. @Ed_Zotti perhaps could adjust that sticky at the top of the page.
You called it “dehumanizing lanuage” when in fact you don’t find it objectionable are you not questioning the language? And you wonder why that was seen by a moderator as a problem?