US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 258

On August 27 2019 15:31 GreenHorizons wrote:


It can be both. Not that it's especially complex, but his strategy is to provoke the conflict, not convince people or mediate.

On September 05 2019 06:36 Gorgonoth wrote:
Why is Grumbels's post acceptable, calling for Trump supporters to be shunned and mocked and harassment of GOP supporters; but xDaunt's post which resulted in the ban is not? Was that ban based mostly on previous posts of xDaunt's that were deemed inflammatory and counter-productive to the conversation?
The ban notice said:
It seems to me that both posts have the same sentiment, why is there not an equal reaction?

On September 05 2019 08:21 KwarK wrote:

There’s a difference between attacking someone for what they are and attacking someone for what they do. It’s not a double standard.

On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:

"punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group?

Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias.

On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:

"punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group?

Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias.

On September 05 2019 10:17 KwarK wrote:

Can you define punitive social consequences? You've also jumped from "social consequences" to "punishment" without any kind of argument that bridges that gap. Your starting premise is that social consequences, for example ostracism of racists, is unacceptable but you then try to justify it with the argument that punishment is too much. These aren't the same things. Refusing to invite racists to your parties isn't a punishment for their racism, they were never entitled to your parties in the first place. Not coming is the default.

Are we punishing these people now? Also who are these people? Presumably not you because, aside from your victimhood projection, you're not on the right. Are they neo-liberals? Nationalists? Neo-confederates? I'm assuming there is a point where you would cease to associate with people so is this just nimbyism by you?

On September 05 2019 10:17 KwarK wrote:

Can you define punitive social consequences? You've also jumped from "social consequences" to "punishment" without any kind of argument that bridges that gap. Your starting premise is that social consequences, for example ostracism of racists, is unacceptable but you then try to justify it with the argument that punishment is too much. These aren't the same things. Refusing to invite racists to your parties isn't a punishment for their racism, they were never entitled to your parties in the first place. Not coming is the default.

Are we punishing these people now? Also who are these people? Presumably not you because, aside from your victimhood projection, you're not on the right. Are they neo-liberals? Nationalists? Neo-confederates? I'm assuming there is a point where you would cease to associate with people so is this just nimbyism by you?

On September 05 2019 20:35 Sermokala wrote:

Jesus kwark calm down why do you have to make this so personal? Grumbles is the one making broad statements about social attacks based on political opinions not me.

Do you really need me to define what punitive means? It's not a long post and if you really don't understand what those words mean then the rest of the post, being you know a direct response to those words, doesn't work to discuss them. This being the feedback thread we're not discussing if we agree with grumbles we're talking a out if it compares to what xdaunt wss banned for.

On September 05 2019 22:53 KwarK wrote:

I know what the words mean. It’s just your position doesn’t make sense based on what the words mean because you’re treating social consequences as an imposed punishment. That’s why I politely asked you to provide your definition instead of just calling you a dumbass for saying something that sounds dumb based on the commonly used definitions.

On September 05 2019 08:53 Sermokala wrote:

"punitive social consequences" for everyone on the right doesn't trigger any red flags for you? That widespread punishment for peoples ideas and their beliefs Is A-okay to you as long as they aren't apart of an arbitrary pre-selected group?

Anyone who doesn't think what grumbles posted is far past what xdaunt said really need to examine their bias.

On September 06 2019 23:15 Danglars wrote:

I think Grumbels knows he’s safe posting that, since it conforms to the default editorial bent of the moderation team. xDaunts comments weren’t due to anything the squad had said or done, they peered into his soul and detected racial animus. Other smears don’t deserve or receive such scrutiny, since blacklists and stuff in that vein are becoming more mainstream.

On September 07 2019 07:08 Jealous wrote:

I read it as a resignation to the status quo more so than having any imaginations of possible change as a result of the post.

TeamLiquid has never been nor claimed to be a democracy - "it's our house," so Kwark can call people dumbasses and argue moderation based on his beliefs. Sometimes mods disagree on things and then they discuss. I doubt this is such a case, and I don't think Danglars believed it to be either. He's just voicing his opinion.