Perhaps, but zz knew it was dancing around the line we had been debating. Then some of the posting in the thread just made the point very clear that I’m just waiting for a clarification to come on Rule #7 that’s never coming unless I start doing some extremely unpopular modding, and the fact that it would be extremely unpopular demonstrates the feelings of the community on these issues (or lack thereof).
It’s more about whether one happens to be online when you need one.
In this regard we’re a great group. In the regard where very few people have strong feelings against the type of posting NBZ has engaged in, or against creating death wish lists, I’m extremely disappointed in the community.
I totally don’t care but appreciate that some do and figure we should be able to express our extreme displeasure in a way that doesn’t cause fragmentation.
Yeah but when you try to define credibly threaten, or get into whether entertaining/advocating/supporting/allowing violence is okay, it gets murky.
And this, this is a huge part of it. The people that want to be able to post the violent stuff to any degree care about it GREATLY. So when most people don’t care enough to be bothered by it, because they just scroll past the bad posts and don’t think twice about them, it becomes hard to get momentum to make a rule banning that type of posting.
On this issue, we have become a microcosm of American democracy. The vast majority are apathetic, so the passionate minority gets their way.
Thanks for all the effort you put in to making this site work. Really appreciated. I hope you stick around and fight your corner. We need the sensible crew to rein in the edgelords. Otherwise we’re in big trouble.
Thanks for your work in getting us where we are cuse. Wouldn’t have happened without you.
This is legit one of the most serene places to post about politics on the net. I honestly don’t think we need more than a couple of moderators anyway. People are civil here.
I don’t think it’s a “passionate minority” but w/e. Obviously overblown and overstated and overreacted but what does my opinion matter. Just change the thread title if it’s that big of a deal. “People who’s deaths we would mourn the least” or “people most deserving of an exile to mars” seem to get the same message across without any pearl clutching. It seems from the responses in that thread, that’s what the community would prefer, so just do that? I don’t understand why this thread.
Maybe it’s the same person flagging posts that more obviously cross the line, but I remember consistently seeing posts getting flagged. When I check them, it’s because they called for violence.
Take that for what it’s worth. I no longer believe that every joke is funny and should be told even if it is, but in the interest of a legitimate counterargument, a lot of people in that thread very clearly were participating in good faith satire and went out of their way to articulate this in no way should be taken as anything else.
Again, I’m not saying that should or shouldn’t give the thread a pass, but it’s clear to me that a lot of posters–even those participating in that draft–share the same sentiment and value that you worry they don’t.
That thread is obviously satire. If it were real it would say something like “Who should be executed first?”
And c’mon. Trump and the GOP are trying to get a whistleblower charged with treason. Punishible by death. In real life. But apparently a draft is crossing a line.
Eh, these days it seems like there’s a lot of fluidity between “oh it’s just satire” and people actually extolling violence. The alt-right trolls always insist they’re just being ironic Nazis until someone runs a car into a crowd of protestors. I think it’s a good idea to avoid even satirical references to killing politicians.
Like, I’m sure cp will insist that the “Should Ilhan Omar be hanged?” thread is hyperbolic and satirical, but boy some of the comments seem genuine.
