|
I imagine that as he started replying to the whole post point by point, simberto found it more and more insane. Foxxan's post reads like he decided to write a murder fantasy at one point. It's actually pretty frightening. We aren't supposes to call out when people writes murder fantasies and are to treat it like an entirely sane and valid opinion?
Also Foxxan posted a video as an argument, I'm sure that shouldn't be allowed too.
Are these not actionable as well?On December 03 2019 08:53 Wombat_NI wrote:
That is incoherent word salad Foxxan come on do better.
On December 03 2019 08:57 farvacola wrote:
He's a Sovereign Citizen, Wombat, he's doing the best he can.
On December 03 2019 08:59 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2019 08:57 farvacola wrote:
He's a Sovereign Citizen, Wombat, he's doing the best he can. I just hope he isn’t being detained.
Or is it a case that Simberto happened to try to go through the post, point by point, as opposed to just be dismissive and impolite entirely?
|
That is indeed the case. I wanted to respond to all of the arguments made, but gave up after those two in my post because i just couldn't stand any more of it. I did also get a bit frustrated by the sheer insanity of it all, and the possibility that a real person could really hold those positions.
|
On December 06 2019 00:44 Simberto wrote:
That is indeed the case. I wanted to respond to all of the arguments made, but gave up after those two in my post because i just couldn't stand any more of it. I did also get a bit frustrated by the sheer insanity of it all, and the possibility that a real person could really hold those positions.
Yeah I make a lot of responses that I don't bother posting because it's arguing against a position that simply doesn't come from a rational thought. Logic, reasoning and numbers are nothing in the face of feelings, which is utterly absurd.
Trumpism is basically a cult though, so it stands to reason that denying reality to enable the beliefs is easier than accepting it.
|
On January 03 2020 08:27 Xxio wrote:...Heads up because I think it's only fair: I ban users who advocate for physical violence (defend the attack against Andy Ngo at your peril.)
Surely what you meant to say is "Team Liquid moderation policy is to ban users who advocate for physical violence", not "I'm swinging my personal moderator epeen around to make a political point".
|
Canada5565 Posts
On January 03 2020 09:32 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 08:27 Xxio wrote:...Heads up because I think it's only fair: I ban users who advocate for physical violence (defend the attack against Andy Ngo at your peril.) Surely what you meant to say is "Team Liquid moderation policy is to ban users who advocate for physical violence", not "I'm swinging my personal moderator epeen around to make a political point". Surely. I opened a thread on this exactly, about a month ago in a staff section and got admin feedback. But you would be wrong to think there isn't variation in how moderators apply warnings and bans.
|
On January 03 2020 09:38 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 09:32 Aquanim wrote:On January 03 2020 08:27 Xxio wrote:...Heads up because I think it's only fair: I ban users who advocate for physical violence (defend the attack against Andy Ngo at your peril.) Surely what you meant to say is "Team Liquid moderation policy is to ban users who advocate for physical violence", not "I'm swinging my personal moderator epeen around to make a political point". Surely. I opened a thread on this exactly, about a month ago in a staff section and got admin feedback. But you would be wrong to think there isn't variation in how moderators apply warnings and bans.
I don't doubt there is variation in the judgement of moderators with respect to mod actions.
The point is that your use of the threat is, on its own, a questionable use of your authority as a moderator, and seriously compromises your capability to appear impartial when moderating that thread in the future.
Whether you'd actually do it or not, or whether other moderators would do the same, or whether other moderators would agree with or condone your action, are unrelated questions.
|
I think I'm safe anyway since my main position when it comes to nazis is that the state should be doing the violence toward them, through strict hate speech laws, and it looks like Xxio has this blindspot for state violence that a lot of people seem to have.
|
But I thought a violent revolution was the only form of revolution that could change the status quo???
|
On January 03 2020 09:50 Jealous wrote:
But I thought a violent revolution was the only form of revolution that could change the status quo???
That's a dangerous thought to have
|
On January 03 2020 09:50 Nebuchad wrote:
I think I'm safe anyway since my main position when it comes to nazis is that the state should be doing the violence toward them, through strict hate speech laws, and it looks like Xxio has this blindspot for state violence that a lot of people seem to have.
For me it's not even a question of whether anybody would actually cross that line and get banned, it's that he's used his moderator powers to set up a situation where he can strawman and shitpost like this:
On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:...
It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind.
|
On January 03 2020 09:53 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 09:50 Nebuchad wrote:
I think I'm safe anyway since my main position when it comes to nazis is that the state should be doing the violence toward them, through strict hate speech laws, and it looks like Xxio has this blindspot for state violence that a lot of people seem to have. For me it's not even a question of whether anybody would actually cross that line and get banned, it's that he's used his moderator powers to set up a situation where he can strawman and shitpost like this: Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:...
It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind.
Oh sure I definitely agree. Not a massive deal to me though, just a low quality bait, I've seen those before and I'll see them again^^
|
Xxio:
FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign is a major scandal
People here like to pretend antifa and the radical left is good [and they're wrong]+ Show Spoiler +I'd add, people are wrong to think Antifa is not so bad when weighed against far right activities
Defenses of Andy Ngo's beating are advocates of beating/killing/assaulting people, and therefore bannable
Very interesting departure in norms for a moderator of the thread. I don't think Falling and other center-rights ever really banned and also interacted in the thread. All three are very contentious claims in current US Politics, though my right wing perspective is that this is a fault arising from groupthink within the left wing.
The usual farva 'how dare you both sides, and I won't look at your evidence on personal principle' (and a point worthy of debate in between) and Belisarius strawman accusations are par for the course. But this is a mod, and probably not one that will surrender the hammer just because thread users level accusations of fallacies. If he/she continues to stick around, the thread might turn away from a dismiss-and-ignore posture ... without the burden of mass reports and second guessing of post quality, since he/she is a mod.
On January 03 2020 09:53 Aquanim wrote:
For me it's not even a question of whether anybody would actually cross that line and get banned, it's that he's used his moderator powers to set up a situation where he can strawman and shitpost like this: On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:...
It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind.
Rich, just so rich. Love it. A germane point regarding Ngo is suddenly a strawman and shitpost because it's made with a touch of sarcastic flair.
|
Yes Danglars, Xxio can be your KwarK, perhaps he will bestow you with a rose after his next joust
The question I posed in one of the posts you very poorly summarized remains ignored by the Golden Mean mod, do you have a good reason for the comparison at hand? You're welcome to answer in the thread.
|
Nah Xxio would have to call people commies to unite Kwark’s nazi-bashing, and accuse racism to match Kwark’s older posts. He can be a moderate right-winger and do just fine. All the thread needs is someone not accepting orthodoxy (Antifa, FISA) not subject to spam reports, and the usual suspects will react angrily for a little and settle down when they can’t bully out a ban in the name of thread order. I’m waiting for the next religious liberty Supreme Court case.
To Farva’s edit: my rather accurate, if not a little tongue in cheek, summary of your post makes no response reasonable. Failure to engage with the list, and absurd shifts of the burden of proof. As I already remarked, the question of whether group violence matters if there’s any connection to mainstream parties is at least worth considering as a possible point.
|
United States42638 Posts
The idea that spam reports get people banned is pretty weird. We’d sooner take away the report button from people. Any report for which no action is taken is automatically flagged a bad report. If a poster were to post a page of bannable stuff you’d still get a 95% bad report stat from reporting all 20 posts.
|
I would think the reasonable response to people's concerns would be that any mod who actively participates in the politics threads should pass off mod duties for the threads they are active in to prevent any question of whether they are abusing their power. If there is something a mod participating in a thread is concerned about, then they should bring it up with another mod who is not a participant and let them judge. This will prevent any appearance of partiality or abuse of power. KwarK has already essentially done this, and I don't think it is unreasonable for Xxio to do the same.
Both Aquanim and Nebuchad have done a good job of outlining what my concerns are so I'll just echo what they said.
|
I also think that that is not acceptable.
You cannot both post a heavily slanted post with your view on things, and then in the same post threaten to ban people, superficially for a specific violation, but making it very clear that you only see one side of the spectrum as being capable of that violation. I found that post very threatening.
|
On January 03 2020 20:53 Simberto wrote:
I also think that that is not acceptable.
You cannot both post a heavily slanted post with your view on things, and then in the same post threaten to ban people, superficially for a specific violation, but making it very clear that you only see one side of the spectrum as being capable of that violation. I found that post very threatening.
We're still talking about this right?
On January 03 2020 08:43 Xxio wrote:...
It's truly unfortunate that you feel hampered by the fact that you can't advocate for beating, killing, or assaulting people of a certain kind.
How is is threatening to you for someone to tell you that you can't advocate for beating killing or assaulting people? The only interpretation is that you feel its okay to advocate for people being beaten, killed or assaulted as long as its the "right people" that the violence is being perpetrated on.
|
I was mostly talking about the first post in that line:
On January 03 2020 08:27 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 08:01 farvacola wrote:On January 03 2020 07:31 Xxio wrote:I don't think it's reasonable to claim the Nazi salutes happened only because Trump was elected. And if the deeper concern is authoritarianism, I would focus more on events like the radical left's post-election riot in Portland. The rioters chanted "We reject the president-elect!" But we all have our biases. At far-right political rallies throughout the United States, folks tout their support for Trump on white nationalist, ethnophobic grounds and threaten civil war if he is not reelected. The connection to authoritarianism is clear in that context, especially given the tie between the threat and the head of the nation. How is that comparable to the scenario you've countered with? Please couch your answer in the meaning of the word "authoritarianism." Threatening civil war is also bad. People who support Trump no matter what are like zombies. I don't think many are white nationalists. I take physical action more seriously, like the Charlottesville attack and this list of radical left activities. I'm sure there are many on the right too. I made this list because for some reason people here like to pretend antifa and the radical left is good. The link to authoritarianism is obvious. I'm not going to write an essay. Heads up because I think it's only fair: I ban users who advocate for physical violence (defend the attack against Andy Ngo at your peril.)
I read this as "Look at how bad and violent the left is. Btw, i will ban anyone who supports violence". I find it hard to not see this as a whole as an intimidation attempt. I am reading this with a subtext of "Better not post left-wing stuff, or i will ban you". Context gives stuff additional meaning.
|
Norway28663 Posts
That's the issue though, a point GH poignantly made, Xxio does not mind people supporting violence, he just minds people supporting one particular type of violence against one particular type of people.
Personally I cannot in any way shape or form be supportive of the idea that you can state your support for drone strikes, knowing they will kill innocent civilians (in addition to their other stated goal, yes) but that you cannot state your support for punching a god damn idiot in the face. I personally don't support either, but killing civilians is a degree of several magnitudes worse than punching Andy Ngo is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
