Maybe people should stop playing this manipulative game of “I’m taking my ball home if I don’t get what I want” in the spirit of keeping this place afloat.
It looks like he’s going to be allowed to continue shitting on the carpet. I’m not happy about that, but I’m willing to deal with it and go along with what the community wants.
Ok. I don’t really care. I just want to know who he was on 2p2.
I mean the ignore feature is pretty robust
Leaps and bounds better than on the old venue.
This argument isn’t being directed at, and heard by, the one person necessary for this to go away.
If the real perpetuator of this nonsense actually felt the same way this whole thing would have been buried a long time ago.
jmakin should have just ignored this post and kept feeding the site money.
It’s not exactly taking your ball and going when you’re repeatedly told you contribute nothing to the site and to fuck off.
Yeah, what a totally unprovoked attack by cuse. C’mon, man.
Just going out on a limb here, but we might also call the real perpetrator of all of this the guy calling for ethnic cleansing.
This. Also I publicly apologized to him and the community for taking the bait there and responding in kind.
In the interest of the community and out of respect for you, I’m doing my best to ignore stuff here that I’d like to respond to, but if the people who disagree with me are going to ignore your request and keep making their arguments and shitting all over my reputation, I’m probably going to jump back in.
Yeah, I’ll have what everyone’s having. I think the guy is probably right, but his being right or wrong is a separate question from whether he gets to say he’s right on this particular website. For me, very little hinges on which way we go. I never wanted to be a mod and I don’t believe in internet democracy. As I’ve said before, benevolent absolute dictatorship is the second worst kind of modding after literally every other kind.
Needed an extra 
Your posts are historically informed and you recently chose John Brown as your avatar, so you can’t possibly think you’re the first rebel to come to despise moderates? That’s like revolution 101, they tell you that before they give you your first pitchfork.
The game theory part stumped me. Threaten enough disorder or effect enough disorder, moderates are as likely if not more likely to abandon justice than to accept it, and they will come to support those who promise to crack heads and restore order. Isn’t that why moderates are shitty to begin with?
Just keep in mind that today’s edgelords are often tomorrow’s moderates. So some “violent outlier” animated by the intensity of spirit you’re attempting to ignite here may come to the conclusion that those who ruminated wistfully about the likelihood of violence without actually getting to the work of it were as useless to the cause of justice as any other moderate.
Nobody is telling you to deny the truth, although in some cases you could keep the truth to yourself? Your deeper reflective critiques aren’t getting you banned, your way too specific edgelording around killing your enemies is tough, for the moment at least.
There may not be a single poster on the forum who hasn’t thought about or wondered aloud how many gun deaths there would have to be to change Republican intransigence on gun control. Some of us have concluded that there may not even be a number. But you constantly say stuff like “not enough victims” after specific shootings, which is not “analysis”, it isn’t even being merely inflammatory, it’s just sick.
You seem to conflate not talking about something with being forced to lie quite a lot. Nobody is forcing you to lie about your post election plans. To the extent that you’re implying that you might do something violent, some of us are asking you to a) not do anything violent and b) not to use this forum to workshop serious/not serious/who knows? threats against your political enemies.
This is of course completely bogus. Being inflammatory is your explicitly stated rhetorical strategy for dealing with the yoke of civility, read your own OP? The suggestion that not being charitably interpreted is driving you to be inflammatory is dishonest in the extreme, and you said you don’t like to be dishonest.
It seems like this has already happened. NBZ’s posts were challenged, and then a discussion and vote ensued.
The problem was, and still remains that the one person in a position of authority wasn’t, as trolly put it:
I don’t think there’s a problem with a good faith discussion about NBZ’s posts. Even after a “decision” has been made. But if the majority sentiment is going to be ignored by those who should most respect it, the cite will continue to tie itself into knots.
Only 55 and 53 people voted in those polls so they don’t count, despite being among the highest participation polls on the site (from a quick search, the first ads on unstuck poll garnered 62 voters).
Saying those polls are a referendum on NotBruce’s work is a joke. Let’s have a direct up or down vote and be done with it.
You may want to think twice about making this suggestion as it may present the opportunity to call into question (and redo) important votes like this.
It’s not a redo in any sense of the word. The polls simply do not support the mandate you claim to have.
They are like polling if Trump should be impeached for specific act X, getting a result in your favor, then claiming you have a mandate to let Trump do whatever he wants without consequence.
There’s a societal cost to suppressing unrest caused by injustice. Sure, their initial impulse might be to crack heads and restore order, but if you raise the cost of suppression and make it known that it will be a recurring cost, that they would be committing to an endless war (where “war” is meant to be a metaphor and not necessarily a violent struggle), eventually, enough members of the suppressing classes will grow weary. Basically, you make it so that it is an easier path for them to give in than to continue with the status quo.
Moderates are shitty because they go for what is easy instead of what is right, so the solution is to make what is not right also not easy. So, how do we go about making moderates uncomfortable?
Respectfully disagree. The polls are literally the posts in question and then, yes ban worthy or no not ban worthy. It’s not hard and the meaning isn’t a mystery.
Edit: Just to be clear, I have not taken a position on NBZ’s posts. You can see from the poll that I didn’t take a side.