Derails about the narrative of bans for dissenting opinions

[davide405]

Continuing the discussion from Undercover cop aims gun at photographer at Oakland protest of police killings:

@aaarrrrrggggg

That’s all you’ve got?

Brilliant.

Let’s rant at each other over here.

You go first

Maybe @W96 would like to join?

[aaarrrrrggggg]

Derail? You’re the one who brought it up.

[davide405]

@aaarrrrrggggg

Exactly. If you disagree with the editorial narrative here at BB they will ban you ASAP with the “dragon” they like to hide behind. It’s almost as if boingboing moderators\editors know their views can’t stand up to scrutiny. They’re not big fans of the dialectic here. It’s best just to agree with all their opinions or move on.

Davide, how do you know this person is a new user and not a returning long time reader who has been banned for disagreeing with the powers that be here at BB?

Those are your words, not mine.

People get banned here for being hateful trollies, for derailing threads with extraneous bullshit, and various other offenses, but not for failing to hew to the party line. That’s all in your imagination.

There are various longstanding community members who can be relied upon to provide a vigorous counterpoint to the prevailing, decidedly liberal and anti-authoritarian slant at BoingBoing. You would know that if you followed and/or commented in any but the three two you’ve joined.

@W96 is a great example of someone who had one thing to say, created an account to say it, posted in the single thread where he could express his message, and will never be heard from again.

I’m really suspicious of stunt accounts, because the creator rarely wants to engage in actual discourse, only to spew some provocative words and then sit back and enjoy the lulz as people make the mistake of engaging with them.

But I would really love to see some examples, with which you must surely be familiar, of users whose accounts are banned for disagreeing with the powers that be.

Can you provide some usernames so we can look at your hypothesis? Or does your view not stand up to scrutiny?

[fuzzyfungus]

Ah, you ignore the sneakiest and most vile tactic of the Boingboing(and liberal in general) political-correctness groupthink oppression apparatus:

By oppressing their victims hard enough to leave hurt feelings and wounded persecution complexes in their wake; but carefully avoiding anything that a non-whiner would recognize as persecution they both persecute their victims and brutally de-legitimatize their victims’ subjective experience of victimhood.

Truly, it’s a crafty tactic, a callous ontological invalidation that directly attacks the epistemic agency of the victim.

In all likelihood, we’ll need an entire academic discipline dedicated to deconstructing the myriad facets of this oppression strategy.

[aaarrrrrggggg]

@davide405

Those are your words, not mine.

…in response to you bringing it up:

@davide405

So, let’s see how long you last before the Don’t-Push-Your-Luck Dragon flies through.

So who derailed?

[davide405]

@aaarrrrrggggg

So who derailed?

… about the narrative of bans for dissenting opinions.

You know, the topic of this thread.

Do you have any evidence?

Edit to add:

In the meantime, you’re continuing to derail the other thread by advancing your tale of woe.

@aaarrrrrggggg

So you’re suggesting he should be banned for disagreeing with the majority opinion or because you allege he is factually wrong? Either way my point still stands. Any group who holds an opinion they are unwilling to defend from scrutiny is suspect in my book. You are entitled to your opinion.

[aaarrrrrggggg]

As I pointed out…you’re the one who brought it up . You derailed it. Not me.

BTW are you some kind of wannabe internet forum moderator!!?? LOL! I guess it takes all kinds.

[davide405]

It’s sometimes fun to spar with a troll, when it doesn’t derail a topic.

But if you can’t do better than “I know you are but what am I?” I’m afraid I’m going to get bored and quit playing.

[aaarrrrrggggg]

Wow! you really are something.

[miasm]

Ah well, you tried.

[navarro]

you really have no self-awareness at all, do you?

[aaarrrrrggggg]

how do you mean?

[navarro]

simply pointing out the obvious fact that if you think the individual who pulled this discussion into a separate thread and away from the main discussion is the derailer then you don’t really have much of an idea of what your commenting behavior looks like to other people.

btw, your open support for deceptive and dangerous tactics on the part of the police is remarkable. i find that attitude repugnant but i admire the courage it takes to express it and stand by it.

[aaarrrrrggggg]

I think you make many assumptions and false claims about my beliefs and the situation. That makes you dishonest. Nothing admirable about that.

Davide started the commentary about banning those with dissenting views on the other thread. That’s a fact. I didn’t derail the thread. I merely added to Davide’s existing comment.

[davide405]

@aaarrrrrggggg

I merely added to Davide’s existing comment.

I guess you’re talking about this:

@davide405

So, let’s see how long you last before the Don’t-Push-Your-Luck Dragon flies through.

That wasn’t the only thing I said in that post, just the only thing you chose to respond to. Here’s the meat of what I said there:

@davide405

A whole 5 minutes passed between your joining and your defending this particular cop’s action.

I invite you to read down through the thread. It’s been established he’s not Oakland PD, and Oakland PD doesn’t know who the hell he is.

Most people regard having a pistol leveled at their face as a threat of deadly force. It’s kind of hard to see, from the business end of a pistol, whether or not the person who can kill you with the the movement of his index finger has that finger on the trigger or not.

In the third post in this thread, I said:

@davide405

I’m really suspicious of stunt accounts, because the creator rarely wants to engage in actual discourse, only to spew some provocative words and then sit back and enjoy the lulz as people make the mistake of engaging with them.

And so far, @W96 is living down to the accusations I leveled.

And for all the talk of banning for dissenting opinions, which categorically is a derail of the original topic (you know, the only other thread than this one that you’ve ever posted in) neither you nor the other police apologist have been banned.

Are you disappointed? Because it sure does weaken what you said here:

@aaarrrrrggggg

If you disagree with the editorial narrative here at BB they will ban you ASAP with the “dragon” they like to hide behind. It’s almost as if boingboing moderators\editors know their views can’t stand up to scrutiny. They’re not big fans of the dialectic here. It’s best just to agree with all their opinions or move on.

and here:

@aaarrrrrggggg

Either way my point still stands. Any group who holds an opinion they are unwilling to defend from scrutiny is suspect in my book.

I called out a stunt account who had made a factually incorrect statement, and chose to ignore photographic evidence of a cop who aimed his weapon at a photographer.

You chose to interpret that as BoingBoing being notorious for banning commenters who didn’t have the right opinions, purely because of those opinions.

That’s a derail.

[daneel]

Note that aaargh has been registered for a month, but only has comments from today. Perhaps earlier ones were deleted?

[davide405]

I did note that.

I half-remember the name as possibly coming from one of the Ferguson threads where the Don’t-Push-Your-Luck dragon feasted on a raft of racist, victim-blaming, sub-conversations within the thread. Collateral damage, possibly.

Whether or not my memory of the exact circumstances is correct, I wonder why the worthy aaarrrrrggggg would not bring their own treatment up when I began asking for examples of BoingBoing’s alleged editorial policies to silence dissent.

[andy_hilmer]

The Philly Cheesefurter School?

[aaarrrrrggggg]

This continued distortion of the term “victim blaming” may aid in perpetuating the narrative BB wants to present but it does a disservice to the actual victims of “victim blaming”. In either of these cases depending on whose story you choose to believe either party is a potential victim. It’s really “loser blaming”. With real victim blaming there is no question who is the victim.

Oh well, as long as you win internet arguments I guess.

[navarro]

if you don’t like my characterization of what you’ve been saying on here you should consider saying different things. on the whole you’ve been either apologizing for the chp officer’s behavior or rushing to the defense of another even more ardent defender of his behavior. it requires little assuming and no falsehoods to draw the conclusions i drew.