Also, Wookie is a mod here. I don’t know how much moderation he’s done since it seems like there’s not much to do besides hiding posts.
Wookie is still a mod, Tom is still around, and if anything the general tone has markedly improved since we left 2+2 (assuming you discount all the newly uncensored cussing). All this nonsense about “violent rhetoric” is a bunch of bullshit manufactured by cuserounder. The very rare cases where somebody has crossed a line have been dealt with the same way they always have, and I see no reason to expect any different in the future.
7 Likes
Seems like his whole outlook is ridiculously naive.
Have you done much in the real world besides poker and broadcasting cuse?
I post similar opinions on other sites (for example, Daily Kos) without getting pushback (unless the mod is a Republican), so if my posts lead to being on a watch list, then I am already on a watch list.
Guy who roots for more law enforcement standoffs to happen in which children burn to death says what about being insulted?
Dude,
First of all, you, yes you, are the one making it all about semantics. You went full on ACer, remember? Like as in, a home invasion robbery is a an act of violence, even if only threats of harm are used, right? But for lol-tastical reasons, you don’t want to use the same word for the same exact physical actions… if those actions are taken under the color of law,
as in during an eviction, That’s arguing semantics dude… plain and simple.
Second, you are suggesting the making up rules. Making up rules is an explicit exercise in semantics. Once again, this is how the ACers acted out… their whole thingee was sophistry, the misuse of semantics, and their number one go-to move was whining about how others are “arguing about semantics”.
Basically, you are insisting that everyone else swallow your preferred semantics whole, then turning around and saying you won’t discuss semantics at all. That’s not acting in good faith.
How about these issues…
-
We already have rule #6. Several posters have said that these proposals for a rule #7 are redundant, as threats are already covered under rule #6. As far as I can tell, you haven’t addressed this valid concern at all. Instead you are dismissively deriding this concern as either “LOL snowflake” y/o “arguing semantics”. That’s a buncha crap on your part.
-
The proposals for rule #7 are simply too broad to be useful, or even coherent. As written, advocating for the death penalty would be forbidden, as it’s wishing death on a group of people (the people on death row). Sure that’s “arguing semantics”… because again, rule making is an explicit exercise in semantics. And semantically these proposed rules fail spectacularly to achieve your goals… unless you really want to ban entertaining the death penalty.
The way you deal with “semantic” failures like this is to try again, and come up with better wording. Again, lol-tastically claiming that’s “arguing semantics” is you simply refusing to discuss the issues at hand.
3 Likes
I pity the poor NSA agent who has to read through our 100+ post em dash discussions and PB&J derails.
11 Likes
Movie scene idea: people working at the NSA can’t resist jumping in with their em dash take.
4 Likes
Glad this gets Sabo posting.
1 Like
It’s like when my partner drags me to some function because it’ll be weird if it’s all couples and her on her own. I go because I love her and want her to be happy but then she complains that I seem miserable when I’m there and I ruin the whole night. She doesn’t just want me to go, she wants me to want to go.
We all pretty much agree with the ‘don’t post things that might cause hassle irl’ standard but it’s not enough. We can’t just not post advocating “violence” (as defined by cuse) we have to not want to advocate violence (as defined by cuse).
4 Likes
More MD is more good.
I don’t want you to get me a glass of water, I want you to empathize with my thirst.
3 Likes
Every time cuse has tried to address the problem, people raised a fuss. People seem to want that kind of rhetoric to be normal here and I’m not in favor of it.
Right now it’s only one weirdo, but what happens if this place gets a bunch of new members?
I’ve definitely seen NBZ endorse burning small children to death and seen him fantasize in detail about which cancer would be the worst for Trump to die from. Maybe it’s not “violent” or whatever but it’s garbage taste and makes this place worse imho.
3 Likes
This is all because of the way [color=blue]cuserounder[/color] has gone about trying to get things done.
Sure, and I agree with you re:garbage taste.
And… if [color=blue]cuserounder[/color] hadn’t gone full-on ACer and started dissembling about the semantics of the word ‘violence’, maybe we could have made some progress on crafting rules regarding “garbage taste”.
But no… instead we’ve gotten incoherent ramblings about “morality” and serial tantrums,
Yes, I know. And every time the content was moderated for being over the line. If anything, NBZ is an example of community standards working without the need for a bunch of rules. He’s probably on his 7th or 8th life at this point and his account is unlikely to survive another incident.
2 Likes
The rules are here to serve us, not us to serve the rules. If it becomes a problem, as opposed to one ignorable edgelord, we can change the rules. And as I said, I don’t mind banning threats of violence, but I object to banning meanness, which seems to be what cuserounder is insisting on?
2 Likes
dude he lives in a world where assaulting someone with a frozen drink isn’t violent. There’s nothing logical about it, despite his claims. I wish people would stop trying to dissect all this and just see it for what it is.
3 Likes
He’s just the one true Scotsman.
I don’t think there’s anything more (nefarious) to it.