We’re supposed to be better than the other side. We’re supposed to not be escalating things. We’re supposed to be trying to win this battle politically.
Apparently some people don’t care if this starts to descend towards a left wing 8chan, because this is the first step in that direction. Whether it’s the first of 100 steps or 1,000 steps needed to descend to that level, it’s a step in that direction. Again, all it takes is ONE person to read his posting and be inspired.
And he won’t even rule out perpetrating violence on his own!
Obviously I’m in the minority here, so I’ll see my way out of this thread. I don’t own the site in any way, so I have no personal liability and I’ve spoken my mind.
Hopefully someone else will pick up the ball and do something to stop this, or some people who agree with me will speak up. If this place becomes (continues to be?) a place that condones (or, allows) this kind of posting, I’ll be joining nunnehi in Unstuck retirement.
Basically my thinking is this. Remove all “watchlist” type of posts. Threats or implied threats of violence against people. Wishing harm is not really that, but probably shouldn’t be allowed. We’re not in disagreement here.
What I am in disagreement with, on a really really hardcore level, is that we’re supposed to clutch our pearls at these sentiments. Half of us probably have thought these same things. He’s saying the quiet parts out loud.
I mean shit, if little kids being ripped away from their parents, probably sentenced to a life of trauma and sadness, DOESN’T make you angry enough to think those thoughts - you probably do not have as much empathy as you think you have. I don’t like the posts, but I understand them completely.
I think these things, but I don’t say them because maybe I want to travel across the border soon and the idea some immigration bro is going to be looking at this site on my phone is a little 'eh. Some of us may be in the US on visas and shit. Hard no to saying the quiet parts out loud, we should cultivate a rhetoric that is a merciless dunking on shit we disagree with but if any of us do want to scream our true darker thoughts into the void, let’s make like a separate slack channel for it or something: Unstuck Unchained!
As far as process goes, you’re making a case, which is appropriate imo. If you think you have support, you (or someone else who thinks it’s worth it) should make a poll and lobby people to vote in it.
Banning him is the way to do this. Watchlist posts are his thing. He has been warned several times and argued for why he won’t stop. This has gone on for months, so people asking for a second chance have not been paying attention. He’s on chance 15 or 16 by now.
Just reiterating what I said to cuse. It’s good that you can make a case and then a poll if you want, but imo what would be absolutely awful would be for him to be banned without much broader and more clear support.
I don’t see why a poll is necessary, personally. When someone is openly advocating for mass violence and winkwinking about killing people if Trump is reelected, they should be banned.
I’m really surprised by the tone in this thread. Discussion and consensus is necessary for non-obvious cases. His posts are similar to a spam bot or repeated, months-long hate speech. Obvious ban imo.
Well, it is possible that you lot will reach the point after 2020 when you have to decide whether a von Stauffenberg is justified because Trump has gone full Adolf, and how to handle posters calling for it.
You might be best to take that on board now that NotBruce is raising the spectre of violent acts against the administration. It wouldn’t be a great look for the forum if he’s banned but ultimately turns out to have been ahead of his time.
I also remember on 2+2 everyone’s favourite Pol poster DVaut1 going beserk and calling some of us fascists because we had railed against the idea of torching a Fox TV presenter’s house when his kids were probably in it, .
I know I’ve referenced guillotines but in the revolutionary sense - heads must roll - rather than the actual cut their heads off sense.
I’d rather some of the attributed quotes above were worded differently while still getting the same sentiment across - they were a bit edgelordy to me.
Can we first define which posts are clear threats or incitements to violence? Because looking at all the quoted ones upthread, and I see very few that would meet my definition.
I’ll let others get into the semantics lawyering. I’m just proposing a way to take a substantive step (what Cuse wants) that isn’t insta-banning (what several people don’t want).
Whoever wants to take the ball and move it forward can change the wording in step 1 to “asked to stop [insert fully semanticked definition of undesired posting].”
I’m not going to wade into that because it’s annoying and I don’t really care enough to devote that time and mental energy to the argument, and full disclosure, I don’t have a problem with the posting.
Agreed, of the ones that were flagged/reported the only one that really seems over the line is the vermin one and that was before Johnny Truant told him to chill.
Well, I guess that forces me to wade back in briefly.
I’m sure plenty of us have said something like that once. Good luck finding a bunch of other examples to form a pattern in my posting. I was particularly triggered by his tweet about Greta Thunberg. I shouldn’t have gone there, but I did. I’m not proud of it. I also did stop short of explicitly wishing for anyone’s death.
I also see a pretty massive difference between my post and a wish for another 9/11, or suggesting that we should begin preparing to take violent action.
You have put it out there that you believe the time for violence is near, if it’s not here already. I think that is unacceptable rhetoric. It’s unfair to take anyone else’s lone worst post in anger and compare your body of work to it to create a false equivalence.
