I mean … so? Like I get the implication, and this guy might well be a right-wing troll seeking to undermine the court ruling in a bad faith way, but is it not possible to raise concerns with US imperialism without being some explicit supporter of other imperialism? To me that reminds me of the whole ‘if you don’t like the USA why don’t you leave’ type of argument. I just don’t think it’s that off-topic but I do have the Ukraine thread muted so maybe I’m missing some context.
Edit: And if you are talking about something else let me know.
Serious question, why do you think that person made that post? Is it because they truly support free speech? Is it because they want consequences for everyone?
Or is it because they’re a trolling piece of shit?
I don’t know who it is and I’m not interested in investigating the context of that one. I assume he’s trolling in bad faith now (took a quick look at his twitter with his lol US flag in handle), it’s not really that significant in my opinion. I was referring to the implications your original post had about UP and the Ukraine thread specifically and I assume Keed/Microbet. Am I missing people criticising the Alex Jones case outcome in some thread or suggesting it wasn’t just? I think taking that tone with Alex Jones is a lot different to US roles in wars. I guess I just don’t really agree with the point you’re making, or at least how I understand it, which would be that some posters are agents seeking to troll/destroy the site/support Russia by raising US imperialism?
Ok so when you see poster Captain X making a post about ‘but what about the Iraq War?’ do you think they’re trying to make a serious point? Because they’re aren’t, they’re just being ‘that guy’, and it’s transparent trolling.
Fine. Agree to disagree. I’ll concede I appear to be in the minority in being able to go on reading without feeling angry/strongly distracted when posts like that exist (as well as actually absorbing their content whether I agree or not with the parallels raised).
I think he’s referring to the guy who used to get banned every other week here who twice recently ‘called’ jman a pedo for going to Disneyland, but please stay; this person was silenced for week or some such thing but it was apparently reduced.
His initial timeout was longer but it was reduced. If this commutation happened spontaneously without community feedback then I apologize, but I vaguely remember somebody taking issue with him eating a silence of that length when one/some of the horsemen didn’t, as if horsemen casually accuse Captains of pedophilia.
Oh let me play this game already for you. It’s a classic game where maxcut’s whataboutism wasn’t actually a defense of jbro’s behavior, it was just whataboutism, totally different dontchaknow.
The whole point is to get you to waste time and get mad about it. I’d suggest doing other things tonight.
Nevermind he’s actually taking credit for the reduction of the ban, it wasn’t a defense at all! He just had a goal of getting the ban reduced and got it.
In good faith, if you want a narrow win on nobody literally said ‘I have a god given right to casually call anybody I want a pedo’ then ok, but he got a lengthier than normal silence for calling someone a diddler; any horsemen calling captains diddlers? Like honestly maybe I’m not read in, but what about the avatar wars made it permissible to call him a pedophile?
In good faith, if there is unfair modding maybe it’s not the strongest idea to raise it in the case of a guy who got silenced for saying somebody was a pedophile, as there are no examples (I hope?) of anybody in the other side using those attacks. There may be many examples of captains getting moderated more aggressively for tone/comments that horsemen get away with, if that’s your view then ok, I wasn’t interjecting on that point.
I’m somewhat sure that guy who got silenced dropped the pedo bomb out of nowhere first, and if jman subsequently made it casual in the sense that it was so ludicrous he chose to mock it with avatars or whatever, then ASCII shrug, I guess I can’t judge the appropriateness of subsequent pedo jabs. Nevertheless,