The Automated Ban List - Page 2114

On October 06 2013 00:51 Antylamon wrote:
Sam!zdat sounds familiar... but where do I remember Sam from?

On October 06 2013 03:07 wei2coolman wrote:
Only fair Sam gets banned, after superfan, right? :D

Both their posts were hard to read without /faceplam

On October 06 2013 05:59 Trumpet wrote:
Always sad when sam is banned, mainly because he presents viewpoints from outside the set political spectrum of how we're supposed to argue (at least from a US perspective). Otherwise once you read the politics threads enough you can see pu/doublereed going back and forth with xdaunt/danglars and know with an uncanny accuracy what their discussion looks like without reading a word. Sam throws a wrench into all that if only because it hasn't been ground into us how we're supposed to feel about and argue with what he brings up. Probably wouldn't be as surprising of topics if I read as much as I should, but if I did that I likely wouldn't have made my way to an sc website

On October 05 2013 19:37 Deleuze wrote:


Pity was enjoying discussion in the book thread.

On October 06 2013 12:53 paralleluniverse wrote:

The cowardly and unjustified bans continue. This time because, allegedly, Sam's writing is "annoying" an "demeaning". Oh please, how petty and childish to ban someone because they annoy you. Ironically, Sam's argument is right, and as Dawkins warns the social taboo of mocking and criticizing religion continues apace despite this double standard not applying in other spheres of discourse such as mocking people's beliefs relating to politics, science, conspiracy theories, taste in movies, etc.

On October 06 2013 13:59 lichter wrote:
This is the internet. These people don't care about truth, only about being right in an argument. Do you think anyone interested in the truth would act like a jerk to whomever he is trying to convince? Makes no sense to be that way.

On October 06 2013 13:59 lichter wrote:
This is the internet. These people don't care about truth, only about being right in an argument. Do you think anyone interested in the truth would act like a jerk to whomever he is trying to convince? Makes no sense to be that way.

On October 06 2013 15:00 packrat386 wrote:
I would say that all of the people who are writing about how they wish that sam would "grow up" are a little bit off base. Although his manner of presentation can be kind of antagonistic, his arguments aren't utterly unsound. I personally disagree with him on a lot of issues, but he does have solid evidence for almost everything he says.

The antagonistic presentation of his arguments is inherent in his role as he tries to break people out of the classic left v right logic that dominates american political discourse. Its arguably not enough for him just to calmly present that there is a third option, it has to be yelled or it will be drowned out..

That isn't to say that I disagree with his ban, but I don't think its somehow a personal flaw, and I certainly don't think its gonna change.

On October 06 2013 15:23 SilentchiLL wrote:


Pretty sure that you can only take up a role like that if you're either above the law or if its enforcers and you have an understanding about what you're trying to do, taking it up otherwise sounds like arrogance.
Not that I'd actually want to judge him as a person here, I'm probably the one who knows the least about his posting habits here, simply because I only visited the american megapolitics thread once or twice and even though I didn't even post in there, the posts I read have left me so scarred inside that I decided to stay away from threads about american politics on TL.
So I certainly have no idea how he posts there, with the exception of his ban-post and an earlier instance of daphreak calling him out as a hypocrite in this thread (in a very funny way).
So I kinda hope that you were wrong about the inentions or strategy behind his behaviour.