So is it just the kids that are off limits or mocking the health of anyone? Because again, you literally have a thread about mocking the deaths of right wingers so I know certain factors are allowed here.
So. Theres been a number of similar comments about riverman being transphobic. Often as a hit and run incidental to the main conversation, so I’ve never picked them up.
I was right in the thick of that thread, and called him out at the time, but I dont think it’s fair or helpful to attack RM like that months later for a couple of comments on an issue that lots of people have gotten very wrong.
It feels much more like weaponizing to score points rather than as a legitimate discussion of transphobia with an acquaintance.
1 Like
I mean I think poster’s families should be off limits for negative attacks/mocking unless it’s in a joking/friendly manner.
Famous people are different, politicians are different, and if you referring to anti-vaxxers in news coverage I think that’s different too. But if someone posted that their anti-vaxx relative died then I’d say that should be off limits.
1 Like
I’d agree with that. If Churchill came hard after Ike’s kid then I’d agree that he’s a problem. I guess that I will take your word for it that those posts exist and that it isn’t because he is was just disliked for other reasons.
I would say he posts some stuff that is contrarian, snarky, and acceptable, but he also posts some stuff that comes across as trolling and he gets temp-banned by mods because of the latter, which the record suggests he does more than anyone else.
For the “Churchill is persecuted” crowd, here’s a relatively recent post:
Informative and on topic. It received zero trolling from anyone and no moderation.
He even follows it up with obvious bullshit and receives zero abuse:
But when he spreads misinformation and fires shots about American tests being faulty and can’t back up his own claims, yes, of course he draws heat:
The above was basically the last time churchill did anything in the covid thread other than pop in guns blazing.
Seems fine to me.
This is exactly correct. What’s more, if everyone who can’t resist getting baited into endless battles with Churchill would just ignore him, he would probably actually post better.
1 Like
I voted no. I’ve only had limited exposure to him and based on posts itt he seems to troll a little but imo not worthy of a permanent ban.
It’s odd Sabo gets brought up in every one of these discussions. I guess he makes a useful yardstick given he was 100% troll having never made a single good faith post in his time here. I think permanent bans should be reserved for his level of trash posting.
1 Like
I’m grunching here but who don’t people just mute Churchill if he bothers them so much?
3 Likes
Yes please.
Overruled. Sabo was the #1 goat poster in the MLB thread.
2 Likes
I’ve never opened that thread so can’t comment.
It’s genuinely hilarious that this has lasted two years. This really dumb “I have to be the center of attention here” drama will end up lasting longer than most people’s HS experiences.
I’ve noticed over the years that you make a lot of these kind of sweeping black and white assessments of things. Might be a leak there in how you process certain information.
4 Likes
If you really believe you’ve played no part in antagonising him and that he’s just out to wind you up, putting him on ignore would deal with that.
But as always you want blood.
Everyone who says this is a Nazi.
Actually you just did comment.
Perhaps your comment wasn’t in good faith?