I don’t really understand why there was a second warning either. I think the first one was warranted – that kind of over-the-top strawman post is difficult to respond to outside the Pit. But, the second one? I don’t really get it.
Well, apparently the warnings didn’t help, since he’s still in that thread posting strawman arguments and demolishing them.
For example:
If indeed, that was true on the old board, I’d say yes. But it wasnt.
That’s a quote from another commenter. No strawman. Yes, it does sound so ridiculous it seems like a strawman,
This is false.
Another poster called her campaign “one of the most openly racist campaigns I’ve ever seen.” You changed that to “the most openly racist campaign EVER.” The most charitable reading isn’t one I’m willing to grant, and it’s that you’re really, really bad at paraphrasing people.
Less charitably, you rephrase what people say in order to make what they say be obviously false, then falsely call it a quote, and make fun of it, because that’s a much easier way to argue.
Straight up that shit is warning-worthy.
Here’s what was said:
" one of the most openly racist campaigns I’ve ever seen"
So I left off the word “seen”. That’s still quite an accusation. I would like to know what I missed. Loeffler must have done something quite racist. It was “openly” racist so that means it was not even subtle. No dog whistles but straight up out in the open racism. Did Loeffler use the N-word? Did she wear a Klan hood?
This is a false statement.
What about the words “I’ve”? Or is it your opinion that the other poster is an immortal ancient who has seen every election in history?
You also left off “one of” and added “ever.” Those three changes changed it from a statement about a personal experience with campaigns and placing her campaign in a racist context, to an absolutist claim that would be absurd (given, say, Strom Thurmond, Lee Atwater, Ben Tillman, or Andrew Jackson.
If that’s seriously the best you can do with paraphrasing, you should have a blanket ban (self-imposed or otherwise) on paraphrasing anyone on these boards.
Nobody has said what was “openly” racist.
Why?
Because there was nothing “openly” racist or racist at all coming from Loeffler.
That claim is false.
You’re trying to argue a different issue now, and one that doesn’t belong in this thread. Even when you’re being called on misrepresenting things, you continue to misrepresent them.
Whether her campaign was openly racist is an appropriate matter for discussion in P&E. You didn’t do that. You changed what someone had said in order to make it obviously false and then mocked the changed claim, acting as though it was theirs. That’s what’s being discussed here.
Given your insistence at the continued prevarication, I hope you’re banned.
Not only insistence, but ignoring the correct information and shifting the topic away from it when corrected.
Yes I know that:
NY Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet :“The left, as a rule, does not want to hear thoughtful disagreement.”
Quotes about “thoughtful disagreement” have no relevance in this situation.
Moderator Note
This is ATMB, not the Pit. Dial it back, please.
Okay. I didn’t realize that expressing desires about moderation decisions was ever verboten in ATMB, but if it is, I can certainly abstain. (Although aren’t such comments–advocating moderation decisions–verboten in the Pit?)
Pitting moderators and moderator actions is forbidden. I don’t think wishing that someone would be banned is prohibited in the Pit but I’ll defer to the actual Pit mod for that one.
But you are saying that calling for this specific moderator action is forbidden in ATMB? Not trying to argue, just want to be clear; this isn’t a rule I’ve heard of before.