|
On February 10 2017 18:51 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2017 18:41 xM(Z wrote:On February 10 2017 18:38 Dapper_Cad wrote:On February 10 2017 17:48 xM(Z wrote: a note here - you people are comparing crimes of refugees vs crimes of natives and i think that's wrong. you should compare crimes of refugees with 0 because they're on top of. native crimes would've happen regardless but refugee crimes are forced upon, are an added bonus. It is for this reason that I am against human pro-creation. Sure, new borns can't commit crimes, but that's a short sighted view. Many, many babies grow up to commit crimes later in life. i don't get it; or rather, how does it relates to what i said?. I don't get how you don't get it. Immigrants commit crimes as soon as their barbarous feet stumble onto sacred European soil. Babies, of any and all extractions, are exactly the same, it just takes longer. As we oppose unregulated immigration -and should oppose it until the immigration rate reaches zero as they are effectively walking additions to criminal behaviour- so we should oppose any and all pro-creation -and should oppose it until the number of babies born reaches zero as they are effectively crawling additions to criminal behaviour. User was temp banned for this post.
TL.net Bot wrote:
Dapper_Cad was just temp banned for 1 week by tofucake.
That account was created on 2010-07-09 06:50:40 and had 890 posts.
Reason: At first this was going to be a warning, but then you posted terribly again.
So then it was going to be a 2 day, but then you posted again.
So now it's a week. You should know better, considering your previous warns and bans, that terrible posts like these are neither wanted nor tolerated.
I was the one who reported the post. This was an honest mistake. I was reading backwards and scanning through the thread when I saw the first sentence. Reading further, it is clear that he was making a sarcastic comment, mocking the opinion of the poster whom he had quoted previously. So please unban him and unwarn him.
|
You're not the only one who reported him. A bit of trolling can be fun but keeping it up for 3 pages, accusing the other party of being the troll, and spamming pictures probably crosses the line
|
hi. i subscribe to this grammar rules: Absolute vs. conditional language Absolute language, which includes words such as never, always, all, certain, and impossible, as well as most verbs of being, closes off alternative ways of interpreting the facts presented, freezing them into a single, static, context-free perspective. Conditional language places limits or conditions on statements of fact, which helps the reader's mind stay open to other ways of understanding the same facts when they appear in a novel context. Conditional terms include some, most, maybe, often, perhaps, likely, unlikely, typically, usually, possibly, one way of.... + if those are wrong then tell me the correct ones. based on those "you people are comparing crimes of refugees vs crimes of natives and i think that's wrong" is not absolute; it should've been "all crimes of refugees vs all crimes of natives" to be about absolute crime rates based on above definition. "that's wrong" is absolute but that doesn't speak for the absoluteness of the crime rates; that is a value judgement.
|
Should have come here first. I was writing up a long reply in ABL and realized halfway in that it should go here. Glad to see someone beat me to it.
Dapper was banned for explaining his reductio ad absurdum after being explicitly asked to do so. The sequence resulted in some of the best satire on TL. This ban has to be Poe's law gone wrong.
#freeDapper
|
I think we shouldn't mix up sarcrasm and trolling. Trolling is meant to derail and inflame a discussion for the sake of it, while satire and sarcasms can be used to make good points or highlight weaknesses in the other person's discourse. I don't think Dapper was trolling and I think his post was actually rather clever if not particularly subtle.
My two cents.
|
The reason given was that the posting was terrible. I thought it was a brilliant satire. The reason given was that posts like these are not wanted. I thought the thread was improved with someone who would engage with xM(Z, and expose his logical fallacies as opposed to ignoring him. As for tolerance, it has been generally expressed that the political thread is more open and is moderated less harshly than other threads, and in any case his posts were a caricature of xM(Z posting style; case in point the very same inanity he expressed in this thread.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36659 Posts
On February 13 2017 23:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The reason given was that the posting was terrible. I thought it was a brilliant satire. The reason given was that posts like these are not wanted. I thought the thread was improved with someone who would engage with xM(Z, and expose his logical fallacies as opposed to ignoring him. As for tolerance, it has been generally expressed that the political thread is more open and is moderated less harshly than other threads and in any case his posts were a caricature of xM(Z posting style; case in point the very same inanity he expressed in this thread. ...What? Where is this coming from? It's the exact opposite of that...
|
TLADT24917 Posts
On February 14 2017 22:29 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 23:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The reason given was that the posting was terrible. I thought it was a brilliant satire. The reason given was that posts like these are not wanted. I thought the thread was improved with someone who would engage with xM(Z, and expose his logical fallacies as opposed to ignoring him. As for tolerance, it has been generally expressed that the political thread is more open and is moderated less harshly than other threads and in any case his posts were a caricature of xM(Z posting style; case in point the very same inanity he expressed in this thread. ...What? Where is this coming from? It's the exact opposite of that... I'm trying to figure this out as well lol
|
I believe Danger is referring to the fact that long-term contributors to political threads tend to have their isolated posts treated a bit more leniently when they are a component of an on-going conversation. The distinction is that leniency in that regard tends to correlate directly with the degree to which the poster in question has contributed to the site generally, whereas general moderation standards in political threads are a bit more strict relative to posters who tend to drop one-liners or otherwise fail to engage substantively.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36659 Posts
On February 15 2017 03:08 farvacola wrote: I believe Danger is referring to the fact that long-term contributors to political threads tend to have their isolated posts treated a bit more leniently when they are a component of an on-going conversation. The distinction is that leniency in that regard tends to correlate directly with the degree to which the poster in question has contributed to the site generally, whereas general moderation standards in political threads are a bit more strict relative to posters who tend to drop one-liners or otherwise fail to engage substantively. This is not the case. A long-term contributor will still get their post mod actioned if they post something wrong, stupid, insulting, offensive, etc. It doesn't matter if they've contributed to the site or to the thread. If they do something actionable, they get actioned. Yes, we are strict to posters who tend to drop one-liners or otherwise fail to engage substantively, but we do not give automatic leeway to contributors just because they've posted quality posts in the past.
|
I am in no way suggesting that long-term contributors "get automatic leeway"; the leeway is directly tied to the conversation during which the questionable post is issued. If someone drops in and says "that's fucking dumb," they'll get actioned. If someone engages another poster in a conversation and then says "that's fucking dumb" as a component of their criticism, it is far less likely to get actioned, particularly when that criticism is part of on-going discussion. This dynamic is evident throughout the US politics thread, particularly among long-term contributors who slip in jabs at one another during the course of a conversation.
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36659 Posts
On February 15 2017 21:16 farvacola wrote: I am in no way suggesting that long-term contributors "get automatic leeway"; the leeway is directly tied to the conversation during which the questionable post is issued. If someone drops in and says "that's fucking dumb," they'll get actioned. If someone engages another poster in a conversation and then says "that's fucking dumb" as a component of their criticism, it is far less likely to get actioned, particularly when that criticism is part of on-going discussion. This dynamic is evident throughout the US politics thread, particularly among long-term contributors who slip in jabs at one another during the course of a conversation. Can you link some examples? I would like to see what you're specifically referring to so I can better understand the context of what you're trying to say. Maybe then I'll be able to explain better why we action some posts and why we don't for others.
Also, bear in mind, as I and plenty of other mods have stated before, the US Politics thread goes by at an incredibly fast pace on a daily basis and is impossible to keep up with. So we depend on frequent users of that thread to report any posts that need further looking at. If bad posts squeaked by without any action, most likely we just didn't see it.
|
I'll either dig up old samples or simply look out for this phenomena in action as people post, whichever happens first
|
It shouldn't really matter, because even for a politics thread, I don't know what Dapper_Cad did wrong. He wasn't ridiculing xMZ, he was ridiculing the idea. And that idea deserved ridicule, because it was logically completely unsound. There was no hyperbole. There was no argument in absentia. There was simply a Reductio ad Absurdum, which is a completely valid rhetorical argument.
|
You can't assume sarcasm on the internet and out of context he made an actionable post.
If you are going to do sarcasm or snark imitation you need to put that your doing it in your post.
Sometimes I try to make the us politics thread more like wreslting and test out catch phrases.
|
On February 17 2017 02:21 Sermokala wrote: You can't assume sarcasm on the internet and out of context he made an actionable post.
If you are going to do sarcasm or snark imitation you need to put that your doing it in your post.
Sometimes I try to make the us politics thread more like wreslting and test out catch phrases. But posts are always in context. Reminds of that time Jaaaaaaaasper got banned for making a completely inappropriate comment in the ABL thread. Was a running joke he had with some people there, but if you weren't in on the joke, it was just a nasty insult. That ban got rolled back when the mods were informed about the joke. Now ABL is of course the laxest corner of this forum by a fairly long shot, but I am just using that as an example that context is important. And saying that dapper_cad said something bannable out of context is absurd.
Just as absurd as calling pewdiepie anti-semitic, I might add, but that's a discussion for another thread
|
On February 14 2017 22:29 Seeker wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2017 23:24 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The reason given was that the posting was terrible. I thought it was a brilliant satire. The reason given was that posts like these are not wanted. I thought the thread was improved with someone who would engage with xM(Z, and expose his logical fallacies as opposed to ignoring him. As for tolerance, it has been generally expressed that the political thread is more open and is moderated less harshly than other threads and in any case his posts were a caricature of xM(Z posting style; case in point the very same inanity he expressed in this thread. ...What? Where is this coming from? It's the exact opposite of that... You mean it isn't? Where else can you have the nastiest bigotted rascist posts not moderated with the reason that it the place for it? Where else is there not so veiled insults chucked about without repercussions? I really don't see any thing to suggest the opposite and that seems to be the common perception to all but perhaps the staff themselves.
|
On February 16 2017 20:40 Acrofales wrote: It shouldn't really matter, because even for a politics thread, I don't know what Dapper_Cad did wrong. He wasn't ridiculing xMZ, he was ridiculing the idea. And that idea deserved ridicule, because it was logically completely unsound. There was no hyperbole. There was no argument in absentia. There was simply a Reductio ad Absurdum, which is a completely valid rhetorical argument.
There's a razor thin line between Reduction ad Absurdum and trolling.
Do you consider those images he posted of trains filled with pregnant Marys as part of his argument? Or is it trolling?
|
It makes perfect sense. xM(Z argument was that a crime from an immigrant should be regarded as one crime too many as immigration is an addition to a population. To which the retort is that it is would be an argument against any births and that it involves a difference between natives and immigrants in terms of presenting crime satistics. Another retorted that xM(Z's argument drawn to its conclusion would be against having a population at all; it is in effect an argument to wipe out the entire population of a country to reduce crime. To which xM(Z gave the insight that births come one at a time (presumably he has never heard of twins or triplets!) whilst immigrants come by train. Though this information is an interesting insight into the mind of xM(Z , it is also logically irrelevant.
To poke fun at the utter nonsense xM(Z had written, Dapper Cad decided to focus on the possibility that multiple births can occur of the course of a year in a population of native peoples in a country. What if birthrates can match immigration rates? I guess using his excellent image manipulation skills, he decided to produce a picture showing a trainload of immigrants births. Unfortunately images of births would be too graphic, so presumably he went for the next best thing, which would be pregnant women. What would be the most impactful and sanititized icon of a pregnant woman in the history of the world?
|
he was banned for this straw man: an addition to a population = any addition to a population. everything after that had nothing to do with my argument; it was just a try to prove or disprove(respectively) that assertion.
Edit: also, a crime from an immigrant should be regarded as one crime too many is a very libertarian way to twist my argument but i could've worked with it.
|
|
|
|