He’s inciting the government?
That post seems completely out of line to me, I really don’t understand the NBZ defenders.
6 Likes
I approve of this ban, not that it’s worth anything. I assume most of the posts will be from people disagreeing, so I wanted to voice my support.
5 Likes
He’s trolling us. This isn’t hard.
3 Likes
If, hypothetically, a person were to defend or try to justify the approach taken in the Moscow Theatre Incident, would they be banned?
That said, that post has convinced me he’s either a troll or so relentlessly singular in intent as to be indistinguishable. Leaning a little to the idea that it’s one of the psychos from the old country - one of the calipers-wielding ATF-moaners, pardon the pun. If we’re confident we can meaningfully enforce a ban, then it might be for the best, though I assumed we couldn’t.
1 Like
Seems consistent to me. He’s the most open and conscious statist on the board. If he’s a lefty, he’s definitely a tankie. (And trolling for sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s not basically his political perspective)
1 Like
Cosign
It’s not just the “incitement of violence” its the blatant disregard for innocent victims. It’s psychopathic and adds nothing to the forum, so why keep it around.
2 Likes
That would be a more relevant question if NBZ said he supported the approach taken. Instead, he said he supported the result which I think is widely agreed was unintended and/or directly caused by the Branch Davidians.
In any case, I would not support banning someone who argued that like that was an ok decision in a difficult situation. If that person went on to say they were happy with how things turned out and wished that a bunch of civilians also died in other conflicts that in fact ended more peacefully (wtf!?!) then they should be banned.
2 Likes
The posts in question are now deleted so I cannot judge them or their context.
My understanding is that NBZ was making one of his “out there” posts about how he would support a Waco-style government action if and when certain guns (think AR-15’s) were deemed illegal and people refused to give up (turn in?) their AR-15’s.
Somebody then mentioned that many children died at Waco. That is totally orthogonal to the point that NBZ was making.
I suppose that some children may die if and when gun-nuts want to shoot it out with government agents if and when AR-15’s are deemed illegal to possess. That would have a very small effect on my supporting or not supporting such a government protocol of removing guns from the populace.
I really really really am upset by this.
3 Likes
I’m in support of the actions @anon38180840 has taken at this moment and agree wrt y’all fleshing out by what he meant. But it sounds real bad.
And tbh I ain’t in to much support if at all of any live rounds by any GOVs or police.
1 Like
The posts are not deleted. You can see them by clicking the “View ignored content” link.
Please start with this post and read the next half dozen. If you think that’s ok or defensible, I’m really not sure what else to say. He explicitly said the OUTCOME was desirable, even after being told that 20 children were burned alive.
2 Likes
The gregorio extra camgirl script (link) goes a long way toward keeping me from taking this forum drama too seriously. I can’t get worked up when everyone’s avatar is some camgirl spanking herself.
3 Likes
Having re-read the posts, I stand by my comments.
1 Like
Then I am sorry you are still upset, and I am genuinely confused at how you can be OK with what was posted. There is an awful lot of daylight between accepting the consequences of difficult decisions and " I approve of the results in Waco."
3 Likes
And then not only “I approve of the results in Waco,” but essentially “I’d like to see that happen in other similar situations.”
1 Like
It seems I have not made myself clear enough.
I personally was not offended by those posts. I recognize that NBZ often dabbles in provocative ways to make his points. The fact that some people took offense to the post(s) proves his point was made.
Imagine if we were around during Waco and its aftermath. Suppose we had 500 people posting on that subject. Do you honestly imagine the there would not be a significant group of posters supporting the government’s decisions and actions? Many people then and now put the burden of the deaths of the women and children squarely on the leaders of the Davidians.
But that is not the central point. Whether one agrees or disagrees with a post (or series of posts) is not the determining factor whether or not the post should receive mod sanctions. Dear Lord. I am currently a mod and have been a mod for several years on some very voluminous forums (on 2p2 and elsewhere). I have read tens of thousands of posts and probably several thousand that I have personally disagreed with, some quite strongly. But I only sanctioned a small percentage of those (maybe only a few hundred or so in total). The determining factor of whether I sanction a post is not my personal view of the post but how the post fits into the milieu (zeitgeist) of the forum. This is doubly true, of course, in any politics forum.
If a member of a politics forum cannot make a passing reference to Waco without being banned, there is definitely something very very very wrong with that forum or that forum’s moderation.
2 Likes
JFC dude, even with the camgirl mod you’re wild as fuck here. So odd that you became one of the mods of the Nazi-ass 22 Unchained forums.
1 Like
free nunn, free punky brewster!
1 Like
OK, so infants burning to death doesn’t bother you. Just for the record, what would bother you?
3 Likes
Passing reference? LOL
2 Likes