CUT!
1 Like
I don’t think consistency is the issue. Does anybody actually believe that a joke Guillotine thread, that any poster can ignore, makes it impossible for people to post here bc of their jobs and somehow all the other stuff on nvg or bbv4l was fine? Manipulation was the word somebody else used to describe this behavior and it seems to fit. Just making up reasons to back up a predetermined view. Doesn’t matter if it makes sense.
3 Likes
No, you’re misreading my post.
I don’t consider milkshaking someone to be violent.
I’m speaking of violence in the terms the average person would speak of violence in if you asked them what was violent. I’m talking about physical harm to others.
I am in favor of capitalism with a strong safety net and strong guardrails.
I don’t consider a properly conducted, lawful eviction to be violent.
This is more or less fine, and it’s how the average person uses the word in conversation. Extra-legal is tricky because I obviously have a problem with cops beating people up or killing unarmed black people, but they routinely legally get away with it even though it’s technically against the law.
Not in conversational American English.
And I think this hits at that heart of a lot of this. The position taken is not flush with others on its face but also drastically inconsistent.
Dumping liquids on people is streets ahead of any intermingle forum rhetoric. One is a physical act of aggression the other is not.
Ranking physical acts of aggression behind violent rhetoric (or in many cases not violent rhetoric) makes no cognitive sense. Then we have to extrapolate this mine field for every single user to find out where all the lines on and what REALLY can’t be crossed.
I know some people think these incidences create a very obvious line in the sand. I am here to say they do not anc they do not come close.
There are tools that allow content to be blocked and hidden to help with these individual processes. However when it comes to a blanket “I can not be associated with any of this” there is only one good, albeit horribly unfortunate and disheartening, solution.
2 Likes
You are conflating their reason for leaving with what you are discussing imo. Those are not the same things.
In my experience, there are two cuses. The one we mostly have today, and the nunnehi 2.0 we got last night.
This is a worthy subject, man. And for all everyone’s complaints ITT, I’m glad you brought it up. This is a good discussion.
Having said that, there are times you make a dialogue with you seemingly impossible in situations where a productive dialogue could easily have contributed to what you hope to achieve.
I’m not the sort who thinks you should always be civil. So these are just my experiences. Who knows? Maybe your topic and the way you brought it up in hindsight will be seen as what was needed.
… I’m speaking of violence in the terms the average person would speak of violence in if you asked them what was violent… Not in conversational American English…
Uh, in conversational American usage, the average person proly means “impeachment, conviction, and removal from office” when they use the word “impeachment”. If you did a survey of average american peeps, proly a majority that had an opinion if the 1999 Seattle WTO protests were “violent”. If you told them that the only acts that might be characterized as violent by some would be (a) cops tear gassing activists, and (b) a few broken windows, I doubt any significant number would change their mind.
The fact of the matter are (a) the general public uses this term in an inconsistent and often coherent manner, and (b) the term is regularly (mis-)used as a propagandic word-of-art.
… I don’t consider a properly conducted, lawful eviction to be violent…
Which is flat-out absurd. Is a properly conducted, lawful caning not a violent act IYO? How about a properly conducted, lawful execution? How about a properly conducted, lawful war? Let’s say you see peep A walk up to peep B on the street, and throw B to the ground, then haul her off. Do you need to wait and see if peep A was an undercover cop before you can even form an opinion regarding if you witnessed a violent act?
I’m not saying you are posting in bad faith. I’m sure you haven’t really thought about it this way. But appealing to some vague sense of what
“survey says” the average American might mean is just inserting gibberish into the conversation.
-
We are, necessarily as a political debating society, do not using terms like ‘impeachment’ and ‘violence’ in the inconsistent, and often incoherent, manner that we would get from conducting a survey of passerby’s in front of the NBC studios in Burbank. Instead we, use such terms in more technical manner, as is necessarily if we as a political debating society want to have coherent conversations.
-
You are suggesting adding to our rules here. It behooves us to not base our own rules on the ever changing, inconsistent, and often coherent, statistical norms that one survey or another might reveal.
-
If you can’t be bothered to spell out what you wants rules against, and instead punt to “whatever average joe thinks”… why would you expect anyone else to take you seriously?
Dude,
How hard is it for you to say…
I’m talking only about the kind of violence that harms beings, and not about the kind of violence that breaks things.
How hard is it for you say…
I’m only talking about violence outside the color of law.
Again, to me, it seems you are self-sabotaging your own proposed rule changes by constantly using this vague and way to general for your own purposes term ‘violence’. Can you describe what you want banned without using this particularly overloaded and contentious term? If so, you really should do just that. Again, if you actually want to bring about a rule change, instead of endlessly derailing your own contention by this poor word usage.
3 Likes
An properly conducted eviction is not going to involve physical harm being directly inflicted. I acknowledge I’m probably in the minority among regulars on this forum, given that there are a lot of full blown socialists here, but if you ask normal Americans whether eviction is violent, the vast majority are going to tell you no.
Not really, it’s using words in the normal way they are used.
I’ve spelled out a number of suggestions for rules in a number of threads we’ve had about it.
Isn’t that what I agreed with here?
Maybe you should read some of the numerous threads we’ve had about this.
All enforcement of law carries with it an implied threat to use the coercive power of government to force compliance. How do you properly evict someone who resists eviction without the potential for violence? The probability may be low but the potential is there. It may be one in a million or even a billion, but it is non-zero.
If there is no threat of government-sanctioned violence to back up a law, then it isn’t really a law, it’s just a suggestion.
This is a really really good, Pulitzer winning book that everybody should read:
1 Like
An properly conducted eviction is not going to involve physical harm being directly inflicted. I acknowledge I’m probably in the minority among regulars on this forum, given that there are a lot of full blown socialists here, but if you ask normal Americans whether eviction is violent, the vast majority are going to tell you no.
Weren’t you around during the reign of the ACers? This was their kind of simple minded reasoning.
A properly conducted home invasion robbery is not going to involve physical harm directly inflicted. Normally when people use the term ‘violence’, they are also including a credible threats of violence.
And, if, as you claim (I haven’t seen you cite any surveys, BTW), most average American peeps would call a home invasion robbery, where nobody was harmed ‘violent’, then would turn around and not call an eviction violent, where again nobody was harmed… well that’s a perfect example of how most American peeps use the term in an inconsistent, and in this case incoherent, manner.
Do you really want to, in all seriousness, suggest that we be making rules for our own internal use, that hinge on what we know for a fact is demonstrably inconsistent, and quite obviously incoherent, word usages by peeps random peeps in the USA?
Isn’t that what I agreed with here?
No, not at all. There are four general cases here…
-
You’re against chatting about killing peeps extra-legally. You call this ‘violence’.
-
You may (or may not) be against chatting about killing people legally, like executions or war. However, you don’t seem to want to call this ‘violence’ for your own curious reasons.
-
Are you against destroying peeps homes extra-legally (and no beings were harmed). Would you want to call this ‘violence’?
-
Are you against an absentee landlord paying goons to legally destroy a house to eliminate squatted (and no peeps being harmed). Would you want to call this ‘violence’?
2 Likes
I think the case with evictions and drug arrests is actually pretty clear, but maybe those are more challenging for people who hadn’t thought of that as violent to accept.
How about “I supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and still think it was the right thing to do”? Not, is that good or not, but can you post on a forum where someone else is allowed to make that post? How about Vietnam? Cambodia? Again, not is it right or wrong, but can you post on a forum where other posters are allowed to say they think those were ok?
If someone is allowed to say they support an immigration policy of “Prevention through Deterrence” will you still post here?
In the 1990s, then president Bill Clinton introduced Prevention Through Deterrence, a border security policy which closed off established migrant routes.
Just so we are all on the same page, dumping a milkshake on someone’s head without their permission is legally an assault.
3 Likes
I really don’t get the impression that anyone here wants to stifle that kind of discussion.
I get that your posts have been more about edgelording (trolling) than advocating violence, but Cuse has more of a problem with advocating violence and while supporting wars and policing is certainly more common than supporting illegal violence, it’s not less offensive to me.
2 Likes
I don’t consider handcuffing someone who is illegally trespassing to be violent. Of course a lot of cops are going to be violent in these situations, but that’s a policing issue not an eviction issue.
I know this makes me a capitalist pig around these parts, but I don’t have a problem with people owning rental properties. I also don’t think squatting on someone else’s property is okay.
Not directly, and I don’t think people should be able to live in someone else’s property for free, so eviction is necessary sometimes.
No, at least not regularly.
Yeah, but robbery is illegal and wrong, eviction is not.
I think you really want to argue about semantics for some reason, and I think most of my views on what is okay or not are pretty easily understood by people reading my posting on the subject matter and discussing it in good faith.
I don’t think I’ve ever called the discussions themselves violence. But I’m against advocating for it, accepting it, supporting it, condoning it, entertaining it, etc, etc.
I don’t have a problem with discussing these things. We never got to a point of narrowing the scope of Rule #7 regarding illegal versus legal violence because we never got to a point where it was clear we had support of enough people to have a Rule #7.
Yes.
No, I’d call it destruction of property.
To destroy his own house? I’m confused here. I may have some issues with it if the tenants belongings are inside or they aren’t given notice, and if there are squatters they should be given a chance to remove their stuff… But I guess if an owner wants to destroy their own property, that’s their prerogative and it’s not violence.
I don’t have a problem with people talking about these things. I believe it was mentioned in one of the NBZ threads that IMO there’s nothing wrong with discussing foreign policy, or legal violence.
Yes. If most of the forum starts saying it, or a large segment of regs involved with running the place, I’d probably leave. Part of the problem with this is that I am closely linked to this place since I was one of the people involved with the transition from 2p2 → Exiled → Here. I’m one of the most prominent regs in terms of frequency of posting/reading. I was a mod.
So if a majority of this group, which I have clearly been a part of, is expressing/condoning ideas I cannot condone, I am sort of in a bad spot where I appear to be accepting their ideas as respectable if I continue to be part of the group that accepts them as such.
So if someone starts advocating for Prevention through Deterrence, obviously 99% of us would be telling them how terrible that is, and it’d be clear where the community stood on that.
I’m so sick of the pearl clutching over milkshaking and it being part of this discussion of violence as some form of “gotcha” against me. Just so we’re clear here, the worst thing that can happen to someone getting milkshaked is their clothes getting ruined. I’m worried about discussing things that can physically harm people.
In before someone says that a milkshake thrown from X distance at Y velocity would do Z damage if it hit someone in the eye/temple/whatever. I wouldn’t condone throwing it hard/far, that’d be morally wrong.
And to be clear I’ve never encouraged milkshaking, I haven’t done it, I haven’t suggested it. I just don’t have a problem with it.
Nope, people are just trying to twist the argument around and score points.
We’ve been over this repeatedly, but a lot of the NBZ posts are not edgelording in my opinion, nor according to him. People want to call them such because it makes them more acceptable, but it’s not really accurate.
I have an issue with advocating illegal violence. I’m not really worried about any of the other stuff because our community is not going to start advocating for horrible foreign policy, almost all of us have positions that are way better than anything on the American right and than like 80% of the American left. I’m probably in the right most 20% of the forum on foreign policy, and I’m probably in the left most 10% of the country on the issue.
So tying it into any of this other stuff is just wasting time, because it’s not an issue facing our community at large.
Seems like you thought that accepting posts that advocated or tolerated or even joked about illegal violence is repulsive and that none of it should be tolerated, even if it was just NotBruceZ. So, a single honest neo-con should be a much bigger problem and even someone who just supported pretty mainstream democratic policy from Obama or Clinton.
You can libtard it up and call it whatever politically correct thing you want, but can you give a concrete example of destroying property by a non-violent means?
I’m pretty sure if a conservative poster put forward an honest good-faith explanation for why they thought the Iraq War was a good idea, it would be permitted here. Why people can’t grasp the difference between that and people making a game of fantasy kill lists or the edgy bullshit NBZ posts is a mystery to me.
I guess I define “edgelording” as deliberately pushing the boundaries of good taste to get a rise out of people or because someone gets off on being the most extreme. It sure seems like that’s what’s going on here with NBZ.
I’m pretty sure if a conservative poster put forward a good-faith explanation for why they thought the Iraq War was a good idea, it would be permitted here. Why people can’t grasp the difference between that and people making a game of fantasy kill lists or the edgy bullshit NBZ is a mystery to me.
Like, 22 had a rule about not calling for violence against politicians. One or two bans came from that and people didn’t have much of a problem with it IIRC. That didn’t stop people from talking about things like the Iraq War or Vietnam or whatever.
That’s an interesting distinction, drawing the line at legality and not morality.
Maybe that set of rules is not right, morally anyway; I understand the legal issue that it’s all fine to say “bombing Cambodia was a necessary evil” but you can’t say “doing such and such to so and so to stop them” is verbotten.