Politics and Society Moderation Discussion Only Fans Thread

I’m bringing concerns about the moderation into the thread that’s specifically for moderation issues, not sure why this is confusing to you.

Not a bad idea IMO, because I'm sure I'm not the only one sick and tired of Victor and this nonsense. I mean, apparently now it's everyone in the forum that loves babies being killed daily.

You're idiots for not having him on ignore

Nope. But that certainly is a choice we have.

Victor is only allowed to post because you have like 7 active posters. It's a business decision.

Yes every single person. A totally reasonable understanding of that post.

Yeah, the commission we mods get every time he posts is much higher than the commission we get on other posters. And the posters we ban are the ones we get docked pay every time they post. Business is business.

As far as the baby thing goes, his argument is fairly straight forward (and tiresome) and goes something like this:

I put that in a quote box not to suggests those are his words, just to separate it from my commentary.

Now, I don't agree at all with this "logic train" ( if one would even call it that at all). And I think that the continual reference to baby killing in places it doesnt pertain is approching the trolling stage where I will need to take action.

But what hasn't happened, as far as Ive noticed, is a substantial rebuttal of his logic chain. Lots of people say no, I support Israel but not baby killing. And that's great. But I havent seen anyone lay out the case that you can say you support a country's war effort but selectively exclude certain war activities. Particularly in the case of the Israeli bombings, which is a major, if not THE major prong of the war effort. So how can someone say they support Israel's war effort but say they dont support the bombing?

There is an argument to counter this line of thinking. But Im not going to make it. That's up to the other posters to do. Engage in the issue. Point out the flaws in his logic. Make the case that support for Israel is not the same as support for the killing of babies. Of course it can go both ways. Make the argument that supporting Palestinian freedom is not the same as supporting Hamas killing civilians and babies as well.

So as you can tell, as distasteful as this strikes so many people, I dont consider it a name calling issue. I consider it an argument to be rebutted. If no one wants to rebut it, and delve into the topic of whether countries or individuals can support a war effort with weapons and intelligence on one hand while claiming they dont support the effects of those war efforts on the other, that would make an interesting discussion. If not, then either ignore the comment or put him on ignore.

I hope people take up the discussion in the appropriate thread. Please dont do it here.

Is it a choice we have? I was under the impression that mods are not supposed to put users on ignore. I've never seen anything official on that though.

I vaguely recall something about mods not putting people on ignore when I first was a mod inB&M. I actually thought it meant that the software wouldnt let a mod do it. But IDK. So if you dont want to see a poster's posts anymore, use the permaban instead. Thats what I do. 😉

According to the above logic, anyone who supported allied retaliation bombing of Germany in WW2 also loved baby killing.

And that Hitler guy was a real jerk, but at least he didn't hide in hospitals, using sick babies as shields.

Of course, because it is the literal meaning of that post.

Yes, it's obviously rhetoric on your part, but the same rhetoric over and over again is really boring, and completely ineffective now.

👍

That wasn't an all-inclusive we. 😀 Ideally, mods shouldn't put users on ignore, and this is more important when they post in forums you mod. Kind of hard to moderate posts/posters you can't see.

I'm actually not a moderator of any forums now (aside from a couple of pretty quiet forums that were without active mods which I recently added myself to), so it's not important for me. That said, even as admin it's probably best that I don't, and it's never been my approach anyway, as I figure we can just scroll on by. In my 17+ years here, I've only put one poster on ignore.

In the software, it's the other way around - regular posters can't ignore mods, or at least that was the case in the past.

So go into the topic threads that it applies to and point out the flaws to that position over there.

It's a complex and nuanced issue, because it revolves around the concept of greater good or lesser evil. It ranges from launching a cruise missile in a small scale attack targeting some key enemy leader but knowing a few civilians in the building will be killed as well to the hundreds of thousands killed in the carpet bombing and nuclear bombs used in WW2. Is it a sliding scale where some number of deaths is acceptable but after that it isn't? When a country is at war, does the concept of innocent civilian even still apply? Or is that a throwback to a time long ago where military combat was pretty much conducted on battlefields away from populated areas?

Lots of layers in this onion waiting to be peeled.

Thanks.

Im so hungry I could eat a horse

thats not really my argument. its close enough but some of the premise is off. so ofc there are logical flaws in that argument. but not in mine.

So the next time you choose to reference a poster as supporting baby killing be sure to explain why you say that. If you dont connect the dots, then it does, in fact, become baseless trolling.

You made an argument? When did this happen?

I mean, this isnt the thread for it but since you called me out...

its quite simple, you cant support the bombing and not support the results. as for Hamas, well Im not gonna say that Israel never targets them, lest Bobbo come in here and scold me, but I dont think many of those bombs are aimed at a Hamas target.

And that differs from what I said how?

I disagree with this part. it sort of implies the civilian death is collateral damage for attacking Hamas. from what I can tell, the civilian death is a goal in and of itself and is really the primary goal of the Israelis.

but like I said, you got the main gist in that you cant support bombing and not the results. I cant fire my gun at someones head and try argue that I was just shooting my gun and Im not responsible for what happens after I pull the trigger.

Just to clarify, if one were to suggest that Ukraine should capitulate to Russia and we know that when Russia occupies parts of Ukraine they torture, mass deport, enact sexual violence, kidnap children for brainwashing, mass execute, etc etc, it is safe to say that the person suggesting Ukraine capitulates supports torture, mass deportations, sexual violence, kidnapping and brainwashing of children, mass executions etc etc?

this capitulation?

OK. Thanks to Vic for clarifying his position and to BG for posing a good question as to whether complicity attaches not only to deaths and suffering that occur at the time an action is taken but also later if the follow on deaths can be reasonably anticipated.

I think the moderating aspect of this issue has been explained. So please continue any further discussions about what it means to support a war effort irt civilian deaths and suffering to the appropriate topic threads.

Thanks.

Israel doesn't target babies
Not one person in this thread has said they want dead babies
Not one
But victor is allowed to say i enjoy dead babies because i don't have the strength to write a 2 page dissertation saying i do. Just because im a zionist i like dead babies.

Sounds legit

That would be a great and amusing comeback if not for the fact that you use the "X supports killing babies" thing all the time, and make it quite clear that's precisely what you mean. Of course you didn't mean every person in this forum; this was just an illustration of your escalating rhetoric.

Rhetoric can be clever and useful when used sparingly. It's pretty useless when it's wielded as a bludgeon.