You are nuts.
I’m around less because of this and I’m not dancing around to please unrealistic people when I’m posting to relax while having drinks. That and I endless hijacks in threads I would normally read between you and nunnehi.
3 Likes
LOL
Insert JLawYeahOkay right here.
Are you entirely certain that didn’t already happen?
1 Like
Is there not normally one other miserable partner in a corner somewhere? That’s my wheelhouse at these things and you can often scrape a conversation there. That and staring at a drink wondering why life hasn’t changed since school discos, obviously.
Your argument also has a semantic component; you’re just saying that your semantic framing is the only correct one.
p.s. Oops, lol, see Sabo’s post for the long version.
Thread is semi—full of semantics and semiotics.
Prominent GOP members actively post on GAB and other similar sites. We’ve seen the emails from Steve Miller! We’ve seen he goes on multiple neo nazi sites and that didnt matter!
When they go low (onto literal neo nazi sites) we go high. Someone should try running on that it’d definitely work.
A semantic and a semiotic walk into a semiosis
I think as lefties we need to be careful not to be seen as anti-semantic.
6 Likes
This is like pretty much every episode of Fraser. It’s more clever than funny. But it is clever. Very clever. The laugh track takes care of the rest.
How about this as a positive alternate suggestion…
No posting content that, simply by being on the same website, might get another poster in trouble at work, or equivalent. There is always a better way of phrasing things. For example… instead of making a “most guillotine-able thread”, instead make a “most odious” thread.
What do you want in rule 7 that isn’t already covered by rule 6?
I can try to answer, but I don’t have perfect criteria either, some of it is an “I’ll know it when I see it” type of thing, which is obviously not a sufficient standard for a community. But by what rule did we guillotine the guillotine thread? By what rule did decide that it was a bad idea to tweet out some SHS/dotard scenario where some misfortune befell them? Read some of what jman said itt, I think my view is similar, although I’m not sure. Some of the stuff that Trolly’s referring to also.
But a pretty easy starting point is: if in your post the people that you hate, who are alive and are your political enemies, end up dead as a result of intentional violence, then that’s likely to be problematic, even if it’s far from inciting anything like if it’s satirical, hypothetical, implied etc…
As I’ve mentioned, sorry to be critical, the proposed wording simply doesn’t work. I’d suggest a blank slate and starting over. Avoid using overloaded buzz-words like “violence” this time.
I really think you are making a mistake in thinking about these things in any way “moral” here, or seeing it as having anything to do with being a “LINO”, or anything at all like that. The only reason that I, at least, brought up what you have characterized as “LINO”-sm is to demonstrate the proposed rule, as written, simply didn’t work… because it really didn’t make any sense at all.
We, as a community, don’t need to set our standards as whatever anyone at all considers, inside their own little heads, to be “moral”. We can do better than that. And we should, and we do. We don’t let posters spew the n-word, under any circumstances, correct? That’s not because of some naive lol-worthy concept of a “morality”. No, it’s because we simply don’t want to see that shit, and we simply aren’t going to tolerate it.
I think you are confusing being resented for a rule you are proposing -vs- being resented for the way you are going about trying to get people to support said rule. But, I would use the word “resent”, I’d instead use the word “annoy”.
My feeling here is that your concern isn’t the content of the content, so to speak. Instead, it’s the possible IRL consequences of posting on the same website that also has certain content that could be seen by the bosses/etc as controversial. Again, it’s not content, it’s controversy.
Am I correct with my feeling?
That said, of course it makes sense to start with concrete examples, then work from there. To repeat, I guess, that was exactly what I was doing above. I was giving concrete examples why the proposed rule, as written, fails (ex: it would outlaw a pro-con debate regarding the death penalty).
1 Like
Rule 6: Threat/incitement of violence
The disagreement was whether a guillotine thread is a threat/incitement of violence.
I can’t remember the details but I think rule 6 applies here, too.
My like is for the poem.
I’d rather ban NBZ than have a rule.
1 Like
@smrk4 I would be very sorry to see you go as you’ve been one of my favorite posters since the Great Schism of April 2019. I am truly befuddled by your stance and the handful of others who seem to share it. Not so much that I disagree with it as I just really don’t understand it. It leaves me scratching my head and confused at a worldview I fundamentally can’t wrap my head around.
9 Likes
I’m happy enough to throw everything out and start over, but I’m not using violence as a buzz-word or overloading it with moral condemnation; I’m using it to denote posts in which violence happens to people, like literally at the level of the proposition: there is a subject of the violence and then there’s a predicate of violent things happening to that subject. On a political forum where the subject of the violence is going to be somebody/some group of people you vehemently despise, and there exists a different context of intent/support, I’d prefer to be reasonably far away from posts that contain such propositions.
I’m pretty sure I avoided this frame in my last few posts and in the wording of the initial rule, but maybe not. I would only classify NBZ’s most memorable work as morally depraved, but I’m not judging people who want to say here that they condone the moral propriety of opposing the state with violence; where I used “moral” it was to say that some think that the spirit of this rule stops them from saying not only morally permissible things that may be in bad taste but also morally necessary/laudable things.
You’re merging me a bit too much with cuse. He was a mod, he took a lot of flack for his stance and that’s for him to continue to address or not as he wants. I don’t think I’ve annoyed anybody with how I have discussed this subject, but that’s neither here nor there. What I’m saying is nobody should have a bad taste in their mouth about the outcome.
1 Like