Yeah like I don’t have a problem with jokes about Rand Paul’s neighbor, or with applauding someone punching a Nazi. There’s a big gap between that and what I have a major issue with.
I’m stepping out of this thread for the night. I’ll see where it’s at tomorrow sometime and start some polls if appropriate.
Well, “okay to not condemn” is a little different. Compelling people to condemn is not gonna happen.
Well, one poster posting that way is not going to turn the site into 8-chan and if it’s headed that way we could do something when it’s just at like 2-chan.
Worst case scenario, come back with an alt account and don’t disclose any personal info.
I’m pretty sure denouncing the posters you don’t agree with would suffice. There is much more violence suggested in ‘Deadheads who hate Trump’ groups I’m in than this site.
I agree with all that.
I just haven’t really seen any “advocating violence” posts linked here unless I skimmed too fast. The 9.11 post certainly doesn’t qualify. Advocating milkshaking senators definitely is advocating violence.
1 Like
I’m not sure if I would say I am playing games, but I am not sure if I would say that I am not. There’s a very serious thesis underlying how I post. I do believe we are at war and I do believe the left needs to be as partisan as the right. I wouldn’t say that I condone violence so much as I decline to condemn it. This is my strategy for combating whataboutism. On some level, it’s meant to be really annoying to conservatives not arguing in good faith. I do understand that it makes some of my ideological allies uncomfortable.
I am often trying to be humorous. That’s what lets me have enough emotional distance to be able to function. Because what’s going on in this country is a tragedy. I’m not going to be violent unless things get so bad that I lose control of my emotions or have a traumatic experience, but I often wonder why no one else does. We should have a critical mass of angry people where there should be some outliers who do unacceptable things in the name of appropriate goals.
I sincerely believe that the Democratic establishment abhors the idea of stoking populist rage in support of progressive policies because they value the semblance of order which props up a self-image of being hyper-rational instead of pursuing justice, however messy the process may be.
If I get banned, so be it. It wouldn’t be the first time. I have a need to be true to myself online because I have to restrain myself at work, surrounded by deplorables. I’ll find another outlet. Maybe I’ll figure out a way to make wn’s life hell after mostly missing out on the unchained fiasco.
2 Likes
It’s 100% when you cold 4bet with QQ. Especially online.
1 Like
I envy @jmakin and his ability to put himself out there like that. I can’t bring myself to share that deeply. I can see how it helps him and I can see how there are some similarities between us. I am just incapable of giving up any part of myself. I think I’d be horrified at the idea of even making an effort to meet up with any of you in real life.
I’ve tried blogging in the past, but it’s always been more intellectual stuff, where I refuse to be personal. It’s probably ridiculous to write a blog completely in the third person, but it’s what I did.
For me, blogging feels like the first step towards writing a manifesto. Writing a manifesto scares me. It implies a path that I don’t want to go down.
I once had this idea for a political blog which I would call something like “America’s Enemies List”, where I would have a weekly entry picking some political figure to criticize, using language meant to drive conservatives into hysterics about how inappropriate I was being, causing a Streisand effect which would spread knowledge of my blog to people who would never have heard of me if I hadn’t been criticized. I would have been uncivil enough to provoke some tone policing from the left.
Maybe I will still use that idea, just not here.
I don’t want to make it easy to link what I write to my real-world identity. Just ask jmakin about how much of a problem that can cause.
I’m that person who remembers little details from conversations and will turn that into weaponized information in a conflict, so I am very guarded in what I share about myself, to the point of incorporating false details into my online personae on a place like 2+2 so that I can’t be tracked down. I think the only really personal info that I have shared here is that I play poker.
I have severe trust issues. What makes me feel safer is knowing more about other people than they know about me. Putting myself out there, giving up information about myself to readers who I know nothing about, would make me feel incredibly vulnerable.
NotBruceZ,
I post too earnestly and used to admire your casual trolling. So much for that.
Lapka’s back?
I read it just like Cuse fwiw.
2 Likes
And hoping for him to have sex with a goat isn’t low-brow at all.
1 Like
Or we can leave NBZ alone until you can articulate the rules you think should be in place bc “ya know it when you see it” isn’t working for most
Sometimes, you can troll people with the truth.
NBZ doesn’t bother me because I think of him as the crazy drunk uncle spouting off nonsense at the family dinner.
With that said, if the site becomes a bunch of people posting stuff like NBZ it wouldn’t be anywhere near as informative or engaging.
One NBZ is enough. No idea how to police that though.
2 Likes
2 Likes