Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
There hasn't been too much drama this week. He desperately had to do something to change that!
Met tried to call the river bet by browser with a bluffcatch and lost.
In general it's not advisable to bluffcatch mods. When they tell you they will ban if you do x, don't do x if you don't want to get banned.
Ofc this isn't an endorsement of the reason for the ban (I clearly disagree, it's a topic which has to be discussed especially because it's a narrative that has been warped by fake citations in the past so clarity is needed)
Sick poker analogy bro. So met's play was -EV?
Mets has been banned for two weeks for disregarding warning about Palestinian birth rates postings and blaming Palestinians for their condition by having kids.
If you dont agree with what a mod says not to post about, that's fine. You can always comment on the policy. But if you continue to post about that topic anyway, despite the warning, you're going to get banned.
I dunno about this one. I mean, he got a ton of heat about it from other posters, explaining how bad his take was. Isn't that sort of the idea of discussing politics?
I mean, I generally support your decisions and I'm probably not mets' biggest fan (although I like the guy) but I'm not sure I agree with this.
Copied from the I/P thread. OK. Unfortunately, I got tied up all day with tests and will be tied up for the next couple of days. So I won't be able to log on much at all, possibly some while in various waiting rooms. I read through about the last 400 posts quickly, and here are some general comments. The idea that Palestinian couples are having more kids so they can be part of
When posters called for vic's banning over his genocide accusation against Israel, you suggested his argument be refuted. Shouldn't the same apply here re Mets's comments?? (and please don't give a monosyllabic "no" like you did before)
It’s really easy to just not reoffend immediately after being given a free pass
Yeah I very much get that too to clarify, but this seems to be an inconsistency on browser's part, in fairness.
When posters called for vic's banning over his genocide accusation against Israel, you suggested his argument be refuted. Shouldn't the same apply here re Mets's comments?? (and please don't give a monosyllabic "no" like you did before)
I mean browser said Hamas is a terrorist organization, so he is allowing people on this forum to take the side of terrorists (according to the institutions of the country the servers reside on); while I agree with that (I think Vic shouldn't be banned for being pro Hamas), I think if you can literally take the side of terrorists, it's hard to justify banning any content which isn't illegal where the servers are in general, as there is basically nothing more immoral or indecent or hateful than being pro terrorism.
Any racism no matter how vile for example, would pale compared to siding with actual terrorists who kill and rape women and children, and very recently as well
When posters called for vic's banning over his genocide accusation against Israel, you suggested his argument be refuted. Shouldn't the same apply here re Mets's comments?? (and please don't give a monosyllabic "no" like you did before)
i'm with you here.
i feel browser is projecting his views on how children are valued onto the subject. we are within 500 years of chinese people drowning female babies and im sure infanticide still goes on in some countries. there are also cultures that will strap a bomb on a child and use him/her as bait to kill enemies. it doesnt seem outside the realm of possibilities that a culture could use this sort of "strategy," to win a war that is very, very personal to them.
i have no horse in this race. i know next to nothing about the conflict over there, i just don't like debate being stifled over feelings.
also, i hope you're test results come back okay, browser.
i'm with you here.i feel browser is projecting his views on how children are valued onto the subject. we are within 500 years of chinese people drowning female babies and im sure infanticide still goes on in some countries. there are also cultures that will strap a bomb on a child and use him/her as bait to kill enemies. it doesnt seem outside the realm of possibilities that a
Chinese people aborted female fetuses a couple of decades ago in huge numbers
i'm with you here.i feel browser is projecting his views on how children are valued onto the subject. we are within 500 years of chinese people drowning female babies and im sure infanticide still goes on in some countries. there are also cultures that will strap a bomb on a child and use him/her as bait to kill enemies. it doesnt seem outside the realm of possibilities that a
that wasnt really the debate. the idea was that is good and proper for Israel to murder children bc their birthrate is so high which is an attack on Israel. tangentially there were arguments that its ok to kill babies bc Hamas wants them dead bc its good publicity or something.
that wasnt really the debate. the idea was that is good and proper for Israel to murder children bc their birthrate is so high which is an attack on Israel. tangentially there were arguments that its ok to kill babies bc Hamas wants them dead bc its good publicity or something.
fair enough.
i dont delve into that topic much, although it seems to be a passion of yours. from my perspective i get why Palestinians are pissed off and i assume, based off nothing but instinct, that israel is the worse of the two.
fwiw, Im not really in favor of the banning but thats more on principle.
that wasnt really the debate. the idea was that is good and proper for Israel to murder children bc their birthrate is so high which is an attack on Israel. tangentially there were arguments that its ok to kill babies bc Hamas wants them dead bc its good publicity or something.
I didn't see anyone argue either of these things, and I read the thread several times a day. Please link to any posts saying any of this.
given our conversation about the Hamas charter, I dont think you are really able to reliably relay information or decipher it.
right but I understand how time works as well. like, Im not gonna blame modern day Germans for what their equivalent of a charter said in 1939. hmm, on second thought, there may be something to your ideas...
right but I understand how time works as well. like, Im not gonna blame modern day Germans for what their equivalent of a charter said in 1939. hmm, on second thought, there may be something to your ideas...
I think that if Germany was lead by a single party, called the Nazi party, in 1955, by the same people who were around in 1939, you might use the 1939 charter to refer to what they think yes, no matter if they decided for PR reasons to amend that.
everyone who stand by the 1939 charter has to be removed with shame at the very least and disgraced and considered a monster deserving death OR you can stand by the 1939 charter.
bruv, do you know who ran West Germany after the war? and their Army? hell, and NATO for that matter?
ok I think I just ruined my own argument
well maybe not really. almost all the Hamas leaders from 1988 are dead.
right but I understand how time works as well. like, Im not gonna blame modern day Germans for what their equivalent of a charter said in 1939. hmm, on second thought, there may be something to your ideas...
If they still called themselves Nazis, I'm fairly sure you would. I certainly would anyway.
Thanks for the well wishes. I just stopped in to let you know that Ive seen and will consider everyones comments, but just wont be able to it or respond in the next couple of days.
Thanks for your patience.
Watched that Lex Friedman debate with Finkelstein, etc... thought it was good mainly because everyone behaved civilized. I already knew basically all the arguments from both sides because I follow the thread in the forum. Losing the Zionist voices from the thread pretty much ruins it and what Mets said I doubt insulted anyone more than Victor calling people genocide lovers.
From Met's history in the thread I don't think anyone can call him malicious or anything even if you disagree with his position and two weeks seems a bit excessive.
