I think I’m getting a little woozy here. Most forums have rules that prohibit posts advocating violence. Very few forums have rules that prohibit posts condoning violence. And I don’t think this is a semantics issue.
For the case of NBZ, I can see how some of his posts can be read to mean that he is condoning violence. I have not seen any NBZ posts that I read as advocating violence. NBZ seems to use the language of violence in an obviously abstract non-credible non-specific manner.
Anyway, I don’t care one way or the other if NBZ is perma-banned (probably as the conclusion of a series of ever-longer temp-bans). But I do want Cuse to remain a mod, perhaps with a slight softening of his stance on sanctioning posts containing what he considers to be “condoning violence” in the future.
I don’t want us to be morally responsible for the spreading of this type of content. The legal liability doesn’t concern me, since I’m not an owner. The moral liability does concern me, since I am in a position with the power to prevent it.
The easy answer is that we don’t own FB, Twitter, etc. As for what good does it do? I think that it’s important that our side not start going down that same path, increasing the likelihood of political violence becoming a both sides issue and decreasing the likelihood of peaceful victory.
Thanks. In this regard, it would come down to the rules that the community wishes to adopt and where the line is drawn on “condoning violence.” I’m on the record as having no issue with condoning punching Richard Spencer in the face or throwing milkshakes at Boris or whatever. If/when the community adopts rules and standards, then the mods should be people who believe in those rules and standards. If I do, I’ll keep modding, if I don’t I’ll step down as a mod/admin.
The violence thing is a huge red herring. It’s way simpler than that.
“You know what this country could really use is another 9/11.”
“I’m thinking what it’s really going to take is multiple successful assassination attempts.”
“The country would be better off if the mass shooters targeted certain subgroups better.”
are not acceptable hypothetical posts. They’re disgusting and incendiary.
Would they bother you if your real name was associated w/ this site? Cuse and others have expressed an interest in expanding this site to include articles, podcasts, etc., but they’d be insane to do so when their work can be instantly discredited and rebuked by throwing NotBruce’s posts at them.
It doesn’t bother me personally too much but that’s not the test I’m using. The question should be how it functions on a public message forum for civil discourse that is open to all comers. It doesn’t play well in that venue.
Not the way it works, if published on this site, tolerating this crap will tar their work the same way w/ we use the most incendiary crap to tarnish Daily Caller, Breitbart, Fox News, etc as a whole.
I haven’t voted because I’m torn. I see valid arguments on both sides, and holes in said arguments. Because everyone loves bullet points, I think:
the difference between condoning and advocating violence is important, and think NBZ has done the former, not that latter.
if NBZ were a conservative aiming his posts at liberals, he’d have been gone long ago. OTOH, attacks and death wishes for Obama were for wearing a tan suit and trying to get everyone medical coverage. Attacks on Trump and conservatives are for caging kids and open, blatant bigotry. It’s not as simple as saying “What if we replaced ‘it’s OK to punch a Nazi’ with ‘it’s OK to punch a Civil Rights advocate’?”
NBZ should take some cues and tone down what often seem to be peurile, edgelordy posts. I think if he dropped the bottom 5% of his range he’d be fine. (24-hour self-ban for poker reference.)
Cuse at times gets over-invested and resorts to black/white dichotomies to win an argument that don’t reflect the nuances of the situation. I also think maybe “over-investment” would be used by NBZ to justify not toning down his rhetoric.
talk of demodding is silly, and doesn’t belong in the conversation. Just as I’d like NBZ to take some social cues and rein it in a little, I’d like Cuse to take some cues and not take the stance “If I don’t agree 100% with the community’s take, then I can’t be a mod here.”
Most importantly, I agree that publicly hashing out every time someone steps over an ambiguous line will be exhausting and paralyzing. We nominated mods because we trust their judgement. You’re our House of Representatives/Commons/Whatever the Socialist Euros Call It. We need to set some clearer guidelines and then let the mods work.
JT, do you take the same stance with something like being environmentally conscious? For America or on an individual level? Just throw up our hands and anything goes because China and other countries are contributing so much to pollution that it’s pointless to make whatever meaningful change is within your personal power?
I sometimes feel like I’m spitting into a brush fire for all the good I’m doing, but that doesn’t mean my actions have no value, or that under my moral philosophy, I’m not obligated to make those choices.
Please let me know if I’m misrepresenting your post.