oh the irony
1 Like
@churchill needs to be moderated. I don’t care if it’s a ban or not, I’m not really familiar with his posting tbh, but his posting in the Epstein thread is fucking disgusting. “These girls weren’t FORCED to go give Epstein handjobs, they did it willingly because they were from a poor part of town” is not discussion that should be permitted. Nor is saying the woman who groomed these girls (oh and also sometimes fucked them too) bears no culpability unless the air traffic controller who let them take off at the airport is equally culpable.
3 Likes
Disagree that he needs to be moderated. He had an incredibly bad take and got deservedly steamrolled. If he does what he says and gets out of that thread with that nonsense then who cares.
6 Likes
Last two takes are good as a supposedly civilised community that’s supposed to be setting an example to the Neanderthal world ruled by the right. Persuade, not ban.
Be the change you want to see etc.
First take not so hot.
Although if he keeps posting about it his conversation should be split off to a new thread with this title
1 Like
And it keeps getting worse. If anything is a unilateral temp ban, this is it.
I almost never care about moderation but this clown needs a break.
I’ve looked at this thread less than a handful of times ever, but came here to see if this was being discussed. His takes in the Epstein thread are indefensible.
I agree. Any moderation action should reflect the views of the general community. Nothing could be clearer than the general community finds his posts in that thread despicable. Therefore, a temp-ban is certainly justified.
Would be a mercy temp-ban at this point.
Yeah, it’s not gonna stop, get the trolling quarantined imo.
we aren’t interested in whether he rethinks his position in this instance.
the people asking for his ban
What’s the point of this forum then. A circle jerk?
1 Like
just speaking for myself but assume others feel the same way, we are fine with debating, this isn’t a debate.
I see a debate there and I see him debating. What do you see?
He is allowed to be wrong about his point of view. What does it say about you lot if you can’t explain to him why his position is so bad?
Maybe we should be banning the whole lot of you as well for being totally shit in failing to explain why child exploitation is bad.
It says very little, given how unwilling or unable he seems to articulate an actual position. We have fragments of a position — sixteen-year-olds aren’t ‘kids’, women are manipulable and can use intimidation as a defence against murder, air traffic controllers etc. When pressed, he just starts rambling about Clinton and Dersh.
4 Likes
I agree, otoh if I can’t tell if serious or trolling it’s trolling, so it wants containing at the very least.