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. Thatâs a ridiculous ban and absurd reasoning.
Weâll be down to like 5 Riverman-approved people in this forum by the time heâs 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 youâre actually defending
-
It seems he was banned for citing to Mearsheimer per Rivermanâs response.
-
My second sentence literally including an and clause stating that 1) Mearsheimer is not a Russian stooge and 2) Haywoodâs positions are not that crazy, so clearly I was refencing his entire body of work.
He was not banned for citing that clown, and BHâs positions include bullshit like if nato was on russias border thereâd be a Cuban missile crisis every month, despite nato being on the border of the ussr since itâs 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 donât agree with the ban anymore than Iâd 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 itâs 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.
What happened to the idea of tucking individuals into containment threads when they were mucking up a main thread? Itâs a way to allow them to keep posting with the people that want to engage them, without taking us all along for the ride.
Bh did this! Repeatedly!
Thatâs essentially a ban though (containment to one thread). If you mean excising a discussion then sure. This should be done way before banning.
Ukraine-Russia non-American MSM thread?
Edit: I mean I assume thatâs a joke (as is my post) but if not then that is just essentially chucking any discussion in the dumpster (labelling contrarian will turn a lot of people off instantly).
The forum can handle someone being wrong. Itâs not like this was going on for hundreds of posts.
3 Likes
I think itâs a bit better than a ban, but fair point. Judicious excising might really help. It seems like these problems really only arise when certain posters just latch on to a position and post relentlessly on it, arguing simultaneously with several other posters until that one thing just dominates a thread and makes it unreadable.
1 Like
I think thatâs fair, and I think a separate thread where people can discuss the origins of the Ukraine conflict would be helpful.
The defense of what BH was doing needs to be frank though, he wasnât some poor honest guy with a wrong position. He was being a fucking annoying idiot repeating the same thing over and over again.
I think thatâs a dumb take, but not banworthy. Haywood is at least arguing in good faith imo.
I donât normally get involved in this drama, but thatâs an awful ban and needs to be reversed immediately.
1 Like
I think he believes his claims, but repeating the same opinion without updating anything when faced with good faith counters is getting pretty dubious.
1 Like