Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Resistance: Actvism, protests and more! The Resistance: Actvism, protests and more!

01-30-2017 , 09:06 PM
It's great that we can reduce the crime and violence done by illegals

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX28pUi75zU
01-30-2017 , 09:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kypreanus
S M, the biggest philosopher on the net, discusses Trump and the ban

https://youtu.be/6b0bIEMsHwM
He isn't a philosopher and you're just spamming utoobzzzzz at this point
01-30-2017 , 09:20 PM
If people are to be banned for things like hate speech, racism, being atrocious human beings, kypreneus should be banned for his avatar. I'm being serious. And in case it's not understood, it's not that it's hard to look at or something, it's that he's an *******.
01-30-2017 , 09:53 PM
How do I ignore someone with an offensive avatar and shallow posts?
01-30-2017 , 09:55 PM
Well, he is temp-banned for now anyway.
01-30-2017 , 09:57 PM
Listening to people who have been getting their applications reviewed for 2 years and then getting issued a visa which expires during this travel freeze is very sad.

There are still some people protesting at the airport. I don't know if I can make it during the week, but if it's still on next weekend I'll spend some time there.
01-30-2017 , 10:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Cut
Haven't fully thought it through yet. I'd put it at "from my dead fingers" at the moment.

The questions asked of some people at the airport about their social media and opinions (and it's come up in some other contexts also), make me wonder if it's a tactic for just this purpose -- to quell some of the online dissent through intimidation. Surely they knew it would make headlines.
Maybe... it's very troubling to me. I can see a million situations in which liberals will be labeled as "terrorists" and a crackdown ensues.

As I type that I think I'm being hysterical or overreacting but the more I think about it the more I know I'm not
01-30-2017 , 10:10 PM
imo we should just drop the hard and fast "rules" on when people should be banned, they just get selectively applied anyway. Just ban people based on whether they ruin threads or not. I dont mind guys like Hank who post substantively and engage in discussion even if they post mostly nonsense. But pure trolls with fat chick avatars just regurgitating talking points, ban on sight imo.
01-30-2017 , 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
imo we should just drop the hard and fast "rules" on when people should be banned, they just get selectively applied anyway. Just ban people based on whether they ruin threads or not. I dont mind guys like Hank who post substantively and engage in discussion even if they post mostly nonsense. But pure trolls with fat chick avatars just regurgitating talking points, ban on sight imo.
Hank was given a chance to speak for himself. Instead he turned tail and ran.

It goes against some **** I posted earlier about suspect posters getting the chance to come clean, but you're right, some are so irritating they should be banned on sight. Like that piet_evil guy that tomdemaine whacked earlier, JAQoffs should go straight to execution, no trial.
01-30-2017 , 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmakin
Maybe... it's very troubling to me. I can see a million situations in which liberals will be labeled as "terrorists" and a crackdown ensues.

As I type that I think I'm being hysterical or overreacting but the more I think about it the more I know I'm not
Last time they passed laws to enable law enforcement to take a look at "terrorists" they ended up using that power for something else.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...rugs-terrorism

And now Trump has that power. Countdown to expanding and making permanent The Patriot Act/American Freedom Act.
01-30-2017 , 10:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oroku$aki
Hank was given a chance to speak for himself. Instead he turned tail and ran.
Hank is an example of the selective enforcement I'm talking about. Posters routinely do things like accuse people of being Russian shills without evidence, to name just one example. With Hank it was just that the specific hyperbolic claim he posted happened to annoy Wookie (I know he wasnt banned, but the threat was there).

I'm not saying moderation should be more objective. Subjectivity is probably inevitable and is better anyway. Just drop the pretence and nuke people who irredeemably suck.
01-30-2017 , 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Hank is an example of the selective enforcement I'm talking about. Posters routinely do things like accuse people of being Russian shills without evidence, to name just one example. With Hank it was just that the specific hyperbolic claim he posted happened to annoy Wookie (I know he wasnt banned, but the threat was there).

I'm not saying moderation should be more objective. Subjectivity is probably inevitable and is better anyway. Just drop the pretence and nuke people who irredeemably suck.
It was an outrageous claim, not hyperbolic.
01-30-2017 , 10:40 PM
It had the tiniest amount of basis in fact. If I werent on phone Id run through the last like 5 pages of a Trump thread and could find a bunch of examples of equally speculative left wing claims.
01-30-2017 , 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
It had the tiniest amount of basis in fact.
Tiny enough for Hank to be unable to find it.

Quote:
If I werent on phone Id run through the last like 5 pages of a Trump thread and could find a bunch of examples of equally speculative left wing claims.
Therefore...let Hank live? Pretty sure he did.
01-30-2017 , 11:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martymc1
Fair play to any of you that have got of your arses and have been out protesting

Keep it up.
It works. We need to follow the Tea party 2010 template.
01-31-2017 , 12:05 AM


01-31-2017 , 12:53 AM
rally planned from 5-7pm tmrw at the state capitol building downtown in columbia SC, will be going

https://www.facebook.com/events/1842671892679550/
01-31-2017 , 12:55 AM
01-31-2017 , 02:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Hank is an example of the selective enforcement I'm talking about. Posters routinely do things like accuse people of being Russian shills without evidence, to name just one example. With Hank it was just that the specific hyperbolic claim he posted happened to annoy Wookie (I know he wasnt banned, but the threat was there).

I'm not saying moderation should be more objective. Subjectivity is probably inevitable and is better anyway. Just drop the pretence and nuke people who irredeemably suck.
Agree with not banning guys like Hank, and specifically not him - 99% of those guys don't apologize and/or change the subject, he was just regurgitating nonsense right-wing talking points and then said he took it back since he couldn't support it. If you're going to make silly unsubstantiated claims (which you shouldn't), that's the right way to handle it!
01-31-2017 , 02:45 AM
I don't particularly care about bannings other than spam and some of these guys are essentially spam. I was just making a point that his avatar is bad. I will say, as a Jew, I'd ban him for that before what has caused some people to get banned for antisemitism.
01-31-2017 , 02:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
How do I ignore someone with an offensive avatar and shallow posts?
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/pr...ignore&u=57335

In general:

right click on their name, view in new tab.
user lists, add to ignore list.
yes, I'm sure. close tab

f5 to refresh the original page. they gone.
01-31-2017 , 03:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simplicitus
How do I ignore someone with an offensive avatar and shallow posts?
Or you can ask me. Mat gave mods broad leeway to remove unsavory avatars.
01-31-2017 , 06:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kypreanus
Trump didn't ban muslims entering the country, how about we stop with the emotional non-rational reactions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzzRT_HLXRQ
01-31-2017 , 07:45 AM
01-31-2017 , 08:07 AM

      
m