I’m not standing up for anyone. I assume ~100 people who lurk or don’t post much read these threads. I don’t know their views or where they’re at on this stuff, nor do I know how long they’ve been around.
I think letting bad posting and horrible takes just go unrecognized and ignored is very bad with that in mind. As I’ve said, discussions here helped me flesh out my views and ideas. The general assumption in a place like this is that if something is not argued with, it’s accepted. That’s how I felt back when I was lurking or rarely posting, at least.
I also felt like this was the “big leagues” of arguing politics online. Not like in the sense of being important or whatever on some grand scale, but you were arguing with intelligent people and you could get cite or ban dropped on you so you better come correct and make good points and back up your facts if challenged.
We recognize when we are fighting a battle that can’t be won. You are never going to change nunnehi. You will not prove him wrong. You will not shame him with his wrongness.
I say this with love man, it’s like watching a codependent mom and an abusive father. The mom needs to just leave the son of a bitch. Instead, she makes it her mission to fix him. She wastes years and years of a life that could have been spent pouring that passion into something that will actually mean a damn of difference. She reveals that CHANGE isn’t what she wants at all. She is addicted to the process of change. It’s no wonder she chooses to focus on the one person she will never be able to change.
Please put him on ignore. Questions of moderation or not are entirely separate. I am saying this with love for you and your mental health.
Now I will back away before I revert into the mom who refuses to accept the people I cannot change.
“when he immediately came on it and started insulting me”
“who couldn’t argue with me in good faith for even 5 minutes”
“he did persecute me just like he is doing now”
“No one cared about his opinion then”
“When you realize the vast majority of his content is insulting people in one form or another, you’ll see the real him that I exposed long ago”
None of that is remotely true and basically proves the exact point I am making.
I have the same problem right now with another mod. It’s a bad flaw in the software that you can’t ignore someone who’s being a ■■■■■
It was meant as a general observation that bullying people is especially wrong if we don’t know their mental state. If you read it in the context of my previous posts you should see this. No assessment of you has been made, or could have been.
Reach out to a mod then. If the community wants me banned over this, so be it. I won’t put up a fight, although I’ll find it hilarious and ridiculous. I’m amazed that I might eat a ban over this and he certainly will not.
This place can really be a joke sometimes.
I don’t want him banned, I definitely support containment but given my history with him is the worst for the longest, I don’t think it’s my place to lead that charge. If others want it, I obviously support it.
I don’t really care about my likability here. I know I’ve pissed off a lot of people, and it is what it is. I’d rather speak out when I think it’s right and call people out when I think it’s appropriate then win the most popular poster contest.
If that hurts my credibility as a poster, well, that seems kind of weird to me. My credibility on political strategy, healthcare policy, criminal justice reform, etc is dependent on how nice I am to nunnehi?
He gets challenged all the time, he gets pushback, I’m not even saying you yourself shouldn’t do it from time to time even if he ignores you, you’re simply doing it way too much is my feedback. And I don’t believe the risk of a lurker reading an unchallenged nun post and then … becoming marginally more optimistic about something they shouldn’t be marginally more optimistic about is particularly high or grave. I’d argue it’s a benefit to have a non WAAF’er here to balance things out, even if he’s stubborn af and won’t budge off his positions.
I’ve been abusive to both of you and have implemented self bans for a month or 2 at a time after I crossed the line. I’m pretty sure I would be silent here if you hadn’t been @ProxyOP nunn relentlessly for the past several weeks. I usually scroll past nunn posts and my annoyance with you boils down to the @'s.
Post
Punch
Post in good faith
Punch
Post in good faith
Punch
Post stop misrepresenting me
Punch lie, etc. etc.
Respond with punch
He’s bullying me!
Let’s get the calculus right. It took an over 200 post interaction in the bailout thread before things got out of hand. That’s not small, and guess who was the instigator when it went wrong? Guess who got upset when an indirect attack hit too close to home? That’s inside them. I could have been talking about anyone, since I didn’t name names outside of Cuse, but they thought I was talking about them. Wonder why that is? It’s certainly not because I mentioned any of them by name in those early stages.
This is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. I said immoral, and there’s a huge difference between immoral and amoral. But WG took the actual word immoral to mean amoral. Do you see the problem here? It’s the same thing every time. That’s what happens when people pound lies into your head so much you believe they’re the truth.
Dude you literally called anyone who didn’t agree with your point that the Dems should cave to Mitch McConnell heartless monsters who had blood on their hands. I don’t think you understand what a good faith discussion is. It definitely isn’t ad hominem attacks every time someone disagrees with you.
For the last time. You aren’t a victim in any of this. Your insult/post ratio is by far the highest of anyone on this site except maybe Trumpbot.
How is criticizing 4-6 people in one thread for continuously doubling and tripling down on the ideas I claim are morality issues representative of what I feel about 99 percent of the forum? You’re demonstrating what I’m saying every post you make. You’re telling me I meant something I didn’t, then you’re saying I’m doing that to 99 percent of the forum (which I also didn’t), and then you said I called you, as people, immoral instead of your position as immoral. And you’re not going to change me from that position. Sacrificing people for politics is immoral. None of you can actually do that, but sitting around criticizing or high fiving about what does or doesn’t happen isn’t a good look. And it was where all the initial push back from me was. Everyone else made it personal.
The 99% comment was meaning that virtually everyone here wouldn’t fit that mold so its a dumb thing to say about people or positions in that thread. Neither the people here or any of the people disagreeing with you there are immoral and our stance there is not immoral.
