Well, dude, then I apologize for my part in our failed communications. Failed comms are a two-way street of course. I've also apologized when you've disliked mod choices and we've amended them.
But the real issue remains: can you unequivocally condemn the escalation of disagreement into confrontation into threats of violence? Because I always find you equivocating when it comes to that. And for the Love of God, please don’t make some insane argument about everyone deserving to be murdered being theologically sound, thus justifying (even partially) specific, directed, personal threats. Nothing is more repulsive.
And even if you choose to do so, at the same time you choose to smear together your responsibilities with others’ into the golem you label “the mod board”. You’re not even the person at issue here, except insofar as you act as a fig leaf for the issue in your long posts refusing to “wheel war” (aka acknowledge imperfection in “the mod board’s” actions aka the original and 4 year longstanding request)
Yes, if it's a threat of violence, it's condemned.
If it's an allusion to violence, that's not often a threat and it's also much more subjective to judge. There was a recent exchange in the hypothetical voice that we debated but eventually agreed was removable. We're not here to remove all allusions to violence that people might take personally, or people might start saying they feel threatened when we speak of the deservingness of this or that Mideastern people-group.
If it's possibly readable as theology, that often gets a pass too because it's more charitable to read it as theological than as actually intentionally violent.
We do acknowledge imperfection in our actions. What I recall being asked 4 years ago was specific adjustments, and I went over the decisions with you and we made adjustments.
A covenant to work together is not a golem, it's a joint agreement to work as a body. All joint agreements in the world work like that.
So those seem to me to be fair definitions, without equivocation. If you don't think so, please feel free to drill down more specifically.
Why is it impossible for you to simply state “yeah man, it’s fucked up that anyone would ever say ‘all your kids deserve to be murdered’, much less the guy I picked to help me mod c/Christianity, I’ve talked to him about this and he knows it’s unacceptable behavior”?
I think I know why. I think you like the plausible deniability he gives you. I think you think you derive benefit from the goodcop badcop routine. You don’t. More importantly, the community doesn’t.
Because I'm not very absolutist and I find nuances to most things. In context, I remember judging that the words he actually used had theological import known to most people who hang out in churches.
If you don't save links there's not that much we can do. I did an ordinary search for the offense but couldn't find the specific comment. Here is one where we discussed it to give you the specific timeframe. My immediate guess is that it occurred in a neutral forum and he edited or deleted it on his own. If so, that would mean that he decided simply that it was inappropriate, to which I'd agree. But if I'm to judge a comment as the first-responder moderator, I've been instructed by admin to review everything with a hope to retain it when possible. That's why I can't say that that phrase should be automatically removed every time it appears, as if by an automod.
More to the point, he's modified the way he speaks, and your bringing up the past doesn't account for that. Ordinarily we ask people to make it right (change the record), apologize, and not do it again, and that's what it appears has happened. My apology also indicates willingness to go with you where things need to go. So let me know what we can do.
Why is it impossible for you to simply state “yeah man, it’s fucked up that anyone would ever say ‘all your kids deserve to be murdered’,
You've made it a hobby horse to whinge about Israel supposedly "targeting children," blatantly pretending that Iranian proxies haven't intentionally attacked Israel from positions under towns, in mosques, in schools, and in hospitals.
Therefore fuck you, bigly.
If you're too stupid to be able to understand this, that's not my problem.
There's more than enough blame to go around to all sides in that conflict, and they're going to continue to kill each other no matter what we do. They were doing that thousands of years before the US existed, it's the height of arrogance to suppose we'd be able to stop them.
I think I know why
You just make shit up. You assign ZERO value to truth.
can you unequivocally condemn the escalation of disagreement into confrontation into threats of violence?
That's never happened. Not once. Learn how to read instead of clutching your pearls, and stop being an insufferable faggot. Or are you trying to beat Bill Mitchell at his own game?!?
Well, dude, then I apologize for my part in our failed communications. Failed comms are a two-way street of course. I've also apologized when you've disliked mod choices and we've amended them.
Thank you.
And likewise.
But the real issue remains: can you unequivocally condemn the escalation of disagreement into confrontation into threats of violence? Because I always find you equivocating when it comes to that. And for the Love of God, please don’t make some insane argument about everyone deserving to be murdered being theologically sound, thus justifying (even partially) specific, directed, personal threats. Nothing is more repulsive.
And even if you choose to do so, at the same time you choose to smear together your responsibilities with others’ into the golem you label “the mod board”. You’re not even the person at issue here, except insofar as you act as a fig leaf for the issue in your long posts refusing to “wheel war” (aka acknowledge imperfection in “the mod board’s” actions aka the original and 4 year longstanding request)
Yes, if it's a threat of violence, it's condemned.
If it's an allusion to violence, that's not often a threat and it's also much more subjective to judge. There was a recent exchange in the hypothetical voice that we debated but eventually agreed was removable. We're not here to remove all allusions to violence that people might take personally, or people might start saying they feel threatened when we speak of the deservingness of this or that Mideastern people-group.
If it's possibly readable as theology, that often gets a pass too because it's more charitable to read it as theological than as actually intentionally violent.
We do acknowledge imperfection in our actions. What I recall being asked 4 years ago was specific adjustments, and I went over the decisions with you and we made adjustments.
A covenant to work together is not a golem, it's a joint agreement to work as a body. All joint agreements in the world work like that.
So those seem to me to be fair definitions, without equivocation. If you don't think so, please feel free to drill down more specifically.
I’m reading 4.9 paragraphs of equivocation here.
Why is it impossible for you to simply state “yeah man, it’s fucked up that anyone would ever say ‘all your kids deserve to be murdered’, much less the guy I picked to help me mod c/Christianity, I’ve talked to him about this and he knows it’s unacceptable behavior”?
I think I know why. I think you like the plausible deniability he gives you. I think you think you derive benefit from the goodcop badcop routine. You don’t. More importantly, the community doesn’t.
Because I'm not very absolutist and I find nuances to most things. In context, I remember judging that the words he actually used had theological import known to most people who hang out in churches.
If you don't save links there's not that much we can do. I did an ordinary search for the offense but couldn't find the specific comment. Here is one where we discussed it to give you the specific timeframe. My immediate guess is that it occurred in a neutral forum and he edited or deleted it on his own. If so, that would mean that he decided simply that it was inappropriate, to which I'd agree. But if I'm to judge a comment as the first-responder moderator, I've been instructed by admin to review everything with a hope to retain it when possible. That's why I can't say that that phrase should be automatically removed every time it appears, as if by an automod.
More to the point, he's modified the way he speaks, and your bringing up the past doesn't account for that. Ordinarily we ask people to make it right (change the record), apologize, and not do it again, and that's what it appears has happened. My apology also indicates willingness to go with you where things need to go. So let me know what we can do.
You've made it a hobby horse to whinge about Israel supposedly "targeting children," blatantly pretending that Iranian proxies haven't intentionally attacked Israel from positions under towns, in mosques, in schools, and in hospitals.
Therefore fuck you, bigly.
If you're too stupid to be able to understand this, that's not my problem.
There's more than enough blame to go around to all sides in that conflict, and they're going to continue to kill each other no matter what we do. They were doing that thousands of years before the US existed, it's the height of arrogance to suppose we'd be able to stop them.
You just make shit up. You assign ZERO value to truth.
That's never happened. Not once. Learn how to read instead of clutching your pearls, and stop being an insufferable faggot. Or are you trying to beat Bill Mitchell at his own game?!?
Look at you lmfao. Proving yourself wrong every time you open your faggot mouth.