We should probably just shut the whole place down if suggesting trolling another site could have such repercussions, I’m horrified at what posts calling for the rich to be guillotined might cause.
I’m thinking about it. There are just a lot of arguments with merit either way. It’s a fuzzy case. The most persuasive argument I can think of at the moment is just that it would set a precedent that overt calls for specific acts of violence can lead to permabanning. I think that we should definitely have a line, if only to protect ourselves, and establishing it somewhere could make this easier going forward.
2 Likes
Despite being the poster who commented on the awfulness of his post I think a one day ban was fine to allow exactly this sort of discussion to take place and as a (probably ineffective) warning to him, and I also think seeking ratification via a vote for such a short ban would’ve been ridiculous.
Anyone who can’t do without this site for a day has serious issues with their life that they should ponder during their time out.
4 Likes
While I believe that is an admirable view for somebody to hold, I find it a preposterous standard for a mod to use on a public politics forum.
Putting it another way, trying to eliminate the possibility of someone posting something that could one day influence someone who reads the forum to commit a violent act is a restriction that does far more harm than good.
I’m probably closer to your POV than others here. Your posts make me uncomfortable, but I try to look inward first. I’m uncomfortable, so maybe I’m the one with the problem and not vice-versa. It’s possible that some here expressing outrage are giant pussies in need of safe spaces. I don’t think they should be sheltered and NBZ should be allowed to vent his frustrations without a bunch of snowflakes getting their panties in a bunch.
2 Likes
I don’t understand your point here, though I agree with you in general. Do you think limits and boundaries within a community should be discarded entirely?
Word. Cuse is the guy picked to dole out bans and enforce rules.
I’m pretty indifferent to NBZ. As far as I know, none of the suppposedly violent posts he’s made are credible threats and would barely make a peep at a subreddit.
I think the clear line should be that it’s not okay to post advocating for violence or using violent rhetoric, and that there should be a structure in place to deal with that. It can start with deleting the post and reaching out to the poster asking them to tone it down. If it becomes a pattern, they get a warning and then a series of escalating bans leading to a permaban eventually.
Morally speaking, I don’t think you can make a compelling case for violence if you haven’t already tried to get change done peacefully (protests, elections, etc). There’s also a huge leap from that to directing ethnic cleansing language at 30-40% of the population.
I’m good with this, although I might take out specific and replace it with actual. I’m less concerned with a specific target/time/place being named and more concerned with whether the post is calling for actual violence or something like, “I hope 45 chokes on a Big Mac.”
I mean, there are obviously levels to it. I don’t think you have to twist yourself into a pretzel to see how it could happen with NotBruceZ, and there’s just no redeeming quality to those sorts of posts. Like, calling Trump a monster could lead to that, but it’s calling out his behavior for what it is. Calling for protests at a detention center in which people refuse to disperse could lead to violence, but it’s a call for peaceful protest. Using ethnic cleansing language is just indefensible, and stating that one might commit violence against Trump if he wins in 2020 is just not something we should allow.
In which people are called snowflakes for opposing… checks notes… a call for the use of ethnic cleansing language.
They’re still there and everyone can see them, so really what’s it accomplishing?
1 Like
This is an absurd view and anybody who thinks like this shouldn’t be a mod. All a mod is supposed to do is read posts at face value and decide what they mean to a reasonable person. None of the NBZ posts quoted here can reasonably be interpreted as a call to violence. Pop music shouldn’t be banned because The White Album plus the butterfly effect led to a murder.
1 Like
So start a poll to demod me. If one-third of voters think I should be demodded, I’ll be demodded and lose admin powers.
Plenty of people disagree, perhaps including NotBruceZ. Here are some of his past posts:
July 29: “I’m thinking it will take multiple successful assassination attempts against Republican politicians to move the needle. Obviously, I kinda don’t advocate that, but I know it’s the direction my mind will go if I ever lose loved ones to gun violence.”
July 29: (referring to the shooting of the GOP softball game) “Not enough casualties, unfortunately.”
August 6: “Unthinking conservatives are part of the problem. The lack of thought on their part could be taken as an argument they lack sentience and deserve to be crushed like vermin.”
August 6: “If I wanted to kill these people, I’d just use poison. Good luck using a gun against that.”
August 7: “I haven’t really figured out how I want to start a topic on this, but I want to acknowledge that I am aware of and anticipated concerns about what I wrote. My mindset is that we are at war and there will be no unity, so we need to adopt more militant rhetoric on our side. If you don’t agree with that, then you can go vote for Joe Biden. How militant is a reasonable topic for debate.”
August 8: “I’m rooting for ISIS to do things that make Trump look bad.”
August 8: “So, here’s where my head is at. I don’t think I’m a threat to commit any real world mayhem, but I make no promises if Trump is re-elected.”
Mid-Sept: “That’s inefficient. The country would be better off if mass shooters targeted rich people instead of minorities.”
Late-Sept: “A part of me wants another 9/11 just so I can say it wouldn’t have happened if Hillary was president.”
Late-Sept: “Would millenials carrying out mass shootings of boomers shift opinion on gun control?”
I think it’s hard not to interpret this as support for violence.
idk if anyone’s going to go shoot someone over this, but by god these posts are obnoxious.
There’s a big difference imo in loaded phrases like ethnic cleansing and cheering for cop killings versus references with historical / literary context. I doubt anyone would pitch a fit if he said “Off with their heads!” or “Send them to the guillotines/gallows.” But instead, his move would be something like “Hope they do a snuff film for ISIS.”
I don’t know, maybe that should be discussed here or here.
I’m just going to copy paste in my previous post showing the context for these “calls for violence” that are actually posts in favor of gun control:
1 Like
Yeah I don’t think that context helps much. “I kinda don’t advocate that,” is just a glass half full way of saying “I kinda do advocate that.”
To me if he would post something more specifically threatening that would obviously be worth banning. These vague, pushing the boundaries posts seem like someone trying to get a rise out of others.
Quite successfully, too.
2 Likes
He’s on the record numerous times that he genuinely believes what he posts, that he thinks the left needs to use violent rhetoric, that he wants to use the language of ethnic cleansing.
And numerous regs are like, “I dunno, seems like he doesn’t actually believe it and just wants to get a rise!”
I mean, maybe, but there’s just no discernible difference so it shouldn’t matter. When someone says they genuinely believe what they’re posting, I think we should just take them at their word.
But, hey, what do I know? I thought this was a community that would surely ban violent rhetoric and instead it looks like I’m probably a pretty big favorite to get de-modded and removed as an admin based on this thread, so you guys will get the no holds barred community you want that condones calls to violence.
Why do I have to do that? You already said
A healthy majority of 40+ voters already said they don’t think the posts are ban worthy. This honestly just seems like a personal grudge and trolling on your part now. I’m certainly not going to create a poll about your demodding given you’ve already cried wolf about it once.
1 Like
He hasn’t been permanently banned.
There are 300+ users here. I think 3-5 people so far have suggested I shouldn’t be a mod.
I have no personal grudge, I don’t think I’ve interacted with NotBruceZ in any significant way other than trying to get the violent rhetoric to stop.
If you want me out as a mod, start a poll. So far a few people have suggested I should be out, but none of them are starting the poll.
2 Likes