Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
No bio...
User ID: 297
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17hr ago
You are a martial arts instructor, right?
What do you do when a liberal comes to your dojo? It must happen, and while in my experience, most people try to avoid politics on the mat (for good reason!) you're often going to get clues about people's affiliations.
This isn't a gotcha question or anything. I just really want to know how you deal with people you literally don't think should coexist with you, when you are in a position of trust and authority and with responsibility for their safety. As a former instructor myself I'd be very concerned about someone who feels they can't teach people with the wrong politics. This sounds nearly as bad as all those psychologists and therapists reportedly distressed at the idea of having to provide help to Republicans.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
17hr ago
I'm not going to mod you for the comment you deleted, but you are kind of being an asshole here. People are allowed to push back on your thesis ( isn't that what you want? To get responses, including criticism?) and responding to a critic with a patronizing "know your place, woman" isn't acceptable in this forum. Maybe that's how you'd like it to be and think it should be, but it's not how it is.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
22hr ago
I generally dislike commentary on FdB that boils down to "he's off his meds." He (with some justification) gets really sick of having that thrown at him.
That said, he does seem really... off lately, and that includes responding to someone posting a Substack article that made him mad (about... treatment for the mentally ill) by literally posting thinly veiled threats to physically assault the poster.
(I can no longer find the link. Possibly he came to his senses and deleted it.)
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
22hr ago
We are often accused of giving "DEI" passes to leftists. I'm not going to bother arguing that point for the umpteenth time. I'm just going to say that no one is ever getting a pass for sending insulting DMs to people or justifying it with "he started it."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
Your post would be perfectly fine without "wokestupid" sprinkled all through it. Don't do that, it's nothing but sneering. Just like if a liberal wrote a post criticizing "conservatards."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
I assume you are jewish.
This is the definition of an ad hominem. Even if he were Jewish, "Your opinion is invalid because Jew" isn't acceptable.
You've been warned and banned repeatedly because of your antagonistic obsession with Jews. As we are obligated to repeat over and over, you can hate whomever you want, but your posting needs to follow the rules.
Banned for two days, but next time you are looking at a longer term ban.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
1d ago
You are getting very agitated for someone who "didn't read lol." This post is terrible: antagonistic, full of personal attacks and mind-reading, and the final flounce. Additionally, we're informed you're sending abusive DMs. The only reason I'm not banning you for the latter is that I have only the recipient's word for it. However, if this behavior continues, you will be banned.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
2d ago
This is what I expected someone like you to say
Are you illiterate?
You two are just bickering and insulting each other now. Stop it.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3d ago
You and @Magusoflight - knock it off. This thread has descended into real bottom-tier gotchas and "edginess."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3d ago
If you know someone is trying to bait you into this kind of response, don't take the bait.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3d ago
Is this what you mean by "Interesting, intelligent people being banned for petty rule violations"?
You are filling the mod queue with these obnoxious attempts to bait people. I'm sure in your own mind you're a brilliant debater pwning the chuds. I am not impressed.
I'm not going to permaban you. I'm going to ban you for two days. In your own words: "Do better."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3d ago
Thank you for your input.
Be less antagonistic.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3d ago
You’re also the idiot
Even if you're responding to someone being antagonistic, do not reply with personal attacks.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3d ago
This place is a hollow husk of its former self.
We're so sorry we fail to meet your expectations. But be less antagonistic.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
3d ago
What sticks in my craw about pearl-clutching from conservatives over less-than-decorous reactions to Kirk's death is how one-sided it is.
I'm not a conservative and I'm not clutching my pearls. I am horrified and disgusted because "less-than-decorous" is an understatement. I do not recall seeing this kind of reaction on this scale, ever. I don't disagree that MAGAs have cultivated an anti-empathy, pro-cruelty attitude towards their enemies, but I haven't seen a major outbreak of tribal celebration over an ideological opponent being murdered in cold blood like this in my lifetime.
I'm old enough to remember when John Hinckley shot Ronald Reagan, and there was conservative pearl-clutching over reports of cheering at a few schools. Those were isolated incidents. This is different. I fortunately do not have any personal friends or family members who are literally celebrating, but they are posting lots of "reminders" about how horrible and harmful Charlie Kirk was. It's impossible not to read the subtext that they think he kind of deserved it even if they don't approve of murder on principle.
I see conservatives seeing this and realizing that even normie liberals think they kind of deserve to die, or at least if they did die, you shouldn't feel sorry for them. That's you, taking that position.
I don't doubt if someone shoots Rachel Maddow or Hassan Piker or whoever the fuck is the leftie counterpart to Charlie Kirk now, rightists will go into full grave-dancing mode, because that's the new norm.
Thanks a lot.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4d ago
Yes, I misunderstood what you were asking for. The mods discussed it and we'd prefer you not start a new megathread since there is already a big thread on the topic right now.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4d ago
Sure, but if you want to start a thread about mod policies, it would be better to put it in the Small Questions thread than the CW thread.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4d ago
Everything is incredibly sad right now.
Yes, it is. You know what? I was probably more hostile than I needed to be, and I'm sorry for that. We've been getting a lot of shit thrown at us lately and the threads this week have been terrible. But I should still have tried to write that in a less antagonistic manner. I apologize.
That said- the point stands. Our rule against posting hot takes on breaking news is not because we're trying to make people jump through unreasonable hoops or prevent people from talking about breaking news. It's because we want to see effortposts, not people trying to emulate Twitter with who can get the fastest zinger out there. It really is not unreasonable to ask you, if you want to talk about the latest breaking news, to put a few minutes thought into what you want to say about it and not just copy-paste a link and an excerpt, which looks very much like someone who is just eager to have the first top-level thread on the subject.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4d ago
From right wing outlets, yes, I see a lot of lionizing about what a great guy he was. From left wing outlets, barely-restrained grave dancing following throat-clearing about how murder is bad. Mostly what I see from mainstream news is "This is awful and says something about politics/free speech/gun control in America right now" followed by a lot of throat-clearing about how Kirk was "controversial."
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4d ago
Once again, the rules of this site are extremely tiresome at times.
Tough.
I know you're sick of reading this same complaint, and I'm sorry for that.
Yes we are, and no you're not.
But this news was going to get posted here one way or another,
Yes. There are good and acceptable ways to post it that require a minimal amount of effort, and there are bad and unacceptable ways to post it because someone wants to be First!!!
and forcing people to jump through hoops to talk about current events while they're happening right now is bad.
No, it is not.
We've explained why the rule exists. We've explained why you can't do what you want to do. You can accept this or not.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4d ago
Why not just let them come back?
He's been told, privately and publicly, that we'd probably let him come back if he did so honestly, and promised he'd make some effort not to behave in the same way that got him banned last time. And this is not some special offer for Hlynka: almost any permabanned member, if they came to us and asked to be reinstated and promised to follow the rules, would at least be considered for amnesty. In case @The_Nybbler decides to lie again about what I just said, let me clear: that doesn't mean "if they grovel enough" or kiss our asses or whatever. It means convince us you want to participate in good faith, you understand why you were banned, and whether you agree with the rules or not, you are willing to abide by them. Someone last time I mentioned this got very upset that this implies "permaban" is not really permanent. Like we are not allowed to say "permanent" if we are willing to consider undoing it. I don't understand autists and anklebiters sometimes.
Anyway, Hylnka knows this, and his response has been to say (in various ways) "Fuck you and your rules."
There's another person active in the thread today who's so blatantly a banned user that I'm shocked nobody else has said anything, but they haven't been banned yet.
Generally speaking, we don't ban people we suspect of being banned users without a very high degree of certainty. This is mostly per @ZorbaTHut's guidance (if it were up to me, I'd be quicker to ban newly-rolled alts that are obviously just a troll recycling.) When I see someone beating a very familiar drum I may or may not ban them, depending on how well they are behaving, but mostly we'll let an obvious alt have enough rope to hang themselves with. This of course means we have many alts and returned permabanned users here right now, some of which I am very much aware of and some of which I haven't noticed or who've managed to fly under the radar thus far. No doubt they think they are very clever and have totally fooled us, but mostly we just don't find it worth our time to spend too much effort playing whack-a-mole. But we will whack them when they make themselves too obvious.
I remember an unofficial policy that if someone came back under a new pseudonym and changed their behavior sufficiently to plausibly avoid detection, that was a win too?
Yes, but you also have to not be determined to flip off the mods because you really want to let us know it's you and you're back neener fucking neener. Which is something Hlynka so far has been unable to do.
Not to mention if most people don't realize it's hlynka he can shed all the baggage of people who hated him for his mod decisions.
That would be credible, again, if he asked us. But I suspect Hlynka would never be able to stop being Hlynka. He'd be pretty obvious to most people quickly enough.
And I know you're reading this, Hlynka, and I'll say again what I've said before: I regret you had to be banned, I wish you hadn't forced us to do it, and I wish you would try to come back under honorable circumstances. But it's never going to happen while you're determined to show us how much contempt you have for us. It doesn't hurt my feelings, but I see no reason why we should consider amnesty for someone who very intentionally keeps trying to stick thumbs in our eyes.
Amadan
Enjoying my short-lived victory
4d ago
This is exactly the kind of disingenuous argumentation I'm talking about.
Your wording is very precise, yet weaselly: "a high up political figure." It implies much but says nothing. Because "high up political figure" implies a politician, or a government official, or at least someone with major influence over the government. But Charlie Kirk was mostly known for debating college students on YouTube and getting out the vote for Donald Trump. Sure, that makes him a public figure with some political influence, but he wasn't the chair of the Republican Party. He was a commentator. A gadfly. That's not what you meant when you tried to equate him with, say, a Hezballah commander or an Iranian state official.
It is a legitimate moral argument to make that the US or Israel should not target the latter with drone strikes. We can debate that. We can disagree about that. But show me the US assassinating a YouTuber.
So once again, let's be clear here: you are arguing that any US public figure, like, say, Ben Shapiro or Ezra Klein, would be legitimate targets because of US policies in the Middle East?
If you want to report someone's posts for being uncivil you may do so, but generally we're a lot harder on personal comments than we are on snide critiques of arguments.
More options
Context Copy link