I don’t know . . . I do know that “They did it first!” stopped working for me around kindergarten.
Point of order: is it possible to threadshit in this kind of thread?
That’s because, in general, if someone uses dehumanizing language my first response isn’t to get someone warned or banned right? It’s a thread about the FBI raid that had drifted into the talk of a military response against enemies of the state described in sub-human terms. That struck me as incongruous to the sentiment expressed quite vocally by many on this board and many in society that “All cops are bastards!”, “pigs in a blanket fry them like bacon”, “defund the police”, etc and the acceptability of actions such as the siege of court houses, the occupation of city centers, and mass demonstrations of political violence that included billions of dollars of damage from arson and looting as mechanisms to enact political change when one’s political opposition were in power.
The sanctity of law and order now becomes the primary consideration? Overwhelming lethal force against transgressors is now acceptable? What the hell has changed? Oh yeah… it’s Biden in office.
You all are about to get me dinged for going off topic in my own thread… But to reiterate, my complaint is not that someone used dehumanizing language or that the thread had drifted but I got warned for responding after the thread had drifted.
As further evidence of my point…
So a poster said something that you think is the opposite from the sentiment of some other posters… but you didn’t object to it, you just wanted to go onto this side topic of how one poster said something that’s different than what you think other posters have said before?
That seems to me to be a pretty clear hijack. And a pretty dumb one, considering that you don’t even disagree with the sentiment apparently.
And still you persist with this ridiculous misleading attempt to equate lawful enforcement action to counter violent criminal insurrectionists (whom you just agreed are appropriately described with robust hyperbole) and illegal politically-motivated violent action against political opponents. If you seriously believe the latter is happening in real life, or that somebody here is advocating it, cite some actual evidence. Otherwise, this is just inflammatory nonsense designed to hijack the thread, just as the moderator decided.
I wasn’t hijacking. That’s farcical when I was warned for it and it’s farcical now. The thread had already drifted.
I was warned because my response doesn’t conform to the prevailing ideological slant of the forum and so it’s noticed. Furthermore, that particular mod has insulted me here and elsewhere and has tried to establish a pattern of so-called hijack with a note or two that were completely unjustified and challenged at the time as an obvious attempt to establish a pattern that does not exist. There is a very strong correlation, unprovable of course, between so-called snark targets and eventual bannings.
If I had thought my post was hijacking the thread I would not have posted it. The fact that the thread had drifted from the OT made it seem reasonable to respond.
It couldn’t possibly be that the snarkers are just snarking on folks that are clearly on the path to being banned of course!
I was responding to the shift in attitude towards the concept of law and order changing due to who is in charge and how such a major shift occurs not because people fundamentally believe in the right or wrong of the exercise of state power but because people find it convenient or not for said state power to be used when it can further their interests. There is nothing inflammatory or nonsensical about such a response aside from those embarrassed by the Janus-esque nature of their own rhetoric.
To reiterate-if the thread had not already shifted to those sort of posts I would never have responded to the thread in that manner. It was not my intent to hijack a thread that had already drifted considerably from the OT. I don’t even think such a thing is possible when it’s a direct answer or comment to an ongoing and non-sanctioned discussion.
There is no such shift in attitude. You’re reading it wildly wrong, perhaps tainted by your admitted disdain for liberal posters on this board.
That kind of misinterpretation is so vast, and so egregious, that (presuming it’s in good faith) it would need its own thread because it would likely take over any other thread.
I know that’s what you were attempting to do, but to make the criticism of hypocrisy you need to present some kind of coherent argument/evidence that this is what’s actually happening. You are just arguing at the level of “I know you are but what am I” to antagonize and disrupt the thread.
Perhaps I am reading it wrong. Me being wrong or right with my perception is irrelevant to the warning. Being warned by someone who gossips about me and insults me in the pit in a thread that had already drifted when no one else gets a warning and the only one who got a note but at least a stern note was for a clear violation of an objective rule makes it seem like it was personal.
Let me make this clear, if the thread was on topic I would never had responded to the off topic post. Since the off topic post and several others like that weren’t nudged back to the OT I made the assumption that the thread had drifted a bit. My mistake was forgetting that some drifts are ok and others are not.
It had drifted a tiny bit to a very closely related issue - people inspired to violence by Trump’s lawless behavior and rhetoric (such as the topic of the thread in question). Supposed liberal hypocrisy was not at all a closely related issue - it was a very different topic.
A: Nice job bringing off board drama here!
2: Oh, you mean doing exactly what the rules allow him to do!
Never mind. I don’t want to detract from this thread.
“Of course”?
The thread was about an FBI action to retrieve documents from Trump’s place. Anything about that’s on point.
The thread drifted to discuss the warrant, and then to discuss the crimes listed on the warrant. Still totally on point.
It drifted to discuss the potential penalties for one of the crimes–still completely on point.
Someone expressed a hope that one penalty–the death penalty–would be imposed. Maybe a little off-point, but not terribly so.
I said I thought that was a terrible idea and would inspire a tremendous amount of murderous violence. I admit that’s a bit off-topic, but we’re still talking about the raid and potential fallout from it, albeit a few steps down the line.
Someone responded to me. They were no more off-topic than me.
Then you started talking about the hypocrisy of liberals and how we just want to control state apparatus or some such bullshit. That wasn’t related to the raid, it was just your tired refrain that you bring up in thread after thread. It wasn’t related to the warrant. It wasn’t related to the punishment.
That said, if you persist in thinking your behavior is acceptable, despite this warning, I’m okay with that, too. Fool around and find out, I’m good with that.
Okay. As the one who wrote the message Ock originally responded to, I feel the need to weigh in. Admittedly, I used less than diplomatic language to describe the people who have threatened federal law enforcement personnel for the sole offense of carrying out their sworn duties, in serving a legal warrant. I called the ones who have threaten to commit acts of terrorism or even start a civil war “bottom-feeding scumbags” and “assclowns”. I realize that is not conducive for a more unified atmosphere in this country. Sometimes, I get sick of being the guy who extends a hand in friendship and gets his fingers slammed in the door.
My previous post, where I brought up the death penalty for espionage, is perhaps where the conversation started to go off topic. As before, I apologize. (Actually, I meant it partly as a joke, which seemingly no one picked up on. Oh well, they can’t all be gems…)
That said:
Here as elsewhere, you misrepresented my statement. Nowhere did I say that all Republicans should be gunned down by the Army. When armed thugs are attacking FBI offices, they cross the line from “political opponents” to “domestic terrorists”.
You literally compare us to insects. Cry me a river.
Unless your misreading is intentional.
I assume you are directing this post to octopus. Is that correct?