I’m not gonna litigate every single offense, it’s exactly how trolls win. Enough. Dude was obviously trying to stir shit up with a no content drive by troll. There has to be deterrence.
Joke ban you have no be kidding lol
Scylvendi
Not that Riverman will bother to defend it, but that Bill Haywood ban is ridiculous. I don’t agree with his positions, but it’s not like John Mearsheimer is some Russian stooge (he’s more of an expert on this shit that any of us, even if we don’t agree with his opinions) or that Haywood’s positions are that crazy. Comparing Haywood to a Russian bot is just offensive. If you disagree with his positions, they should be refuted not banned. It’s not like he was posting offensive stuff or super high volume in the thread.
Either that or the powers that be need to let people know which sides of arguments posters are not allowed to take.
14 Likes
Haywood’s work includes a lot more than referencing an academic doesn’t it?
Yes - do you have a point?
1 Like
Lol. See: DISCUSSION forum
“The United States and its allies are responsible for this crisis, not Putin and Russia,” Mearsheimer said.
Come on.
1 Like
Maybe you should delete the whole thread then because that content comes from the OP.
1 Like
Whoever compared BH to Kelhus was also pretty fucked up.
Giving Riverman a modship may have been the worst collective decision by this forum ever. That’s a ridiculous ban and absurd reasoning.
We’ll be down to like 5 Riverman-approved people in this forum by the time he’s done.
7 Likes
Comparing a poster to a Russian bot should be allowed, but posting like a Russian bot should maybe also be allowed?
That your framing of his behavior is ridiculous. If you want to defend bh be honest about what you’re actually defending
-
It seems he was banned for citing to Mearsheimer per Riverman’s response.
-
My second sentence literally including an and clause stating that 1) Mearsheimer is not a Russian stooge and 2) Haywood’s positions are not that crazy, so clearly I was refencing his entire body of work.
He was not banned for citing that clown, and BH’s positions include bullshit like if nato was on russias border there’d be a Cuban missile crisis every month, despite nato being on the border of the ussr since it’s literal inception.
Posting and referencing the exact same video multiple times that is awfully similar to Russian propaganda while posting other nonsense is what he got banned for. You need to defend that
I don’t agree with the ban anymore than I’d agree with banning SK for the op. If he crosses the line into active obtuse disinformation (like many did on 2p2 during Crimea crisis), sure, but the contrarian opinion that NATO/US is in part responsible for the conflict is, while tediously incorrect in major ways, legitimate discourse, imo.
7 Likes
Do you think it’s legitimate discourse to repeatedly refer to the same video over and over again while making asinine assertions in multiple other areas?
This - we should ban people for providing false facts, but I think the bar for banning someone for holding an opinion we disagree with should be ridiculously high.