Letter to the Editor

[StrawBoss]

I agree with him. Should I stand by to be blocked as well?

[Banabanana]

I find your insulting, impolite, and harassing language hurtful.

[robulus]

Really? You’ve got very delicate sensibilities for someone who offers such bold opinions so shortly after joining.

[Banabanana]

It’s “bold” to point out a “minor hypocracy,” and I’m sensitive?

You disagree with me, fine, but how are you being any better than the subject of the OP by telling me to “fuck off?” You are now in violation of the rules here, and there was no call for that.

[robulus]

I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.

[CaptainPedge]

“bollocks”

But if something’s good, it’s “the dog’s bollocks”

[Banabanana]

I suppose you’ve done one productive thing here though. We get to see how universally the rules are applied. While the subject of the OP disagreed with the editorial angle of the site and got banned for “breaking the rules,” you agree with the editorial POV of this article and have now broken the rules of the site.

I actually agree that the subject of this post is a cretin and should have his comments deleted, perhaps; I don’t know the whole story. However, my discussion of the semantics and language used in our discussion of the topic isn’t negated by holding that opinion.

[jsroberts]

I’d also like to state that while I am a Jonathan R, I am not the @jonathanr.

I’d say a lot of the issue is that a forum like this one has the power to define its own Overton window, which may be quite different from the one generally accepted by society and may therefore exclude the opinions of quite a few people whose opinions are normally seen as moderate. A lot of people don’t consider MB to be a particularly good example of a victim. That’s OK in some places, but not here. Even if he attacked the police officer in his car and was charging Wilson with murder in his eyes just before he was shot, it can help to move away from the constant questioning about who was or wasn’t the perfect victim and notice that this kind of regular killing of unarmed suspects doesn’t happen in most countries and that it is extremely disproportionately suffered by black people. It does mean that some discussions are left with very little to discuss, as a question that could be seen as relevant in some places (what could the rape victim have done to avoid this rape?) is dismissed as irrelevant and derailing without having to argue the point again.

[anon23281680]

Also, I thought the whole purpose of “a letter to the editor” is to have it posted/printed publicly?

[zathras]

@beschizza

Hence, banned for “fantasizing about being banned”, irrespective of other rules broken.

This has happened many times. The basic formula is to whisper at the audience “watch me do something OK and get banned for it”, then act out the self-fulfilling prophesy and experience the bitter thrill of vindication. I don’t think many people are impressed; even if they do find the underlying point agreeable, they understand that it’s a disruptive and toxic form of performance

When I see such posts, I get annoyed at them too. When I see the posters being banned, I feel they are being retroactively justified. I don’t like the feeling of annoying stuff being justified in any way at all.

Isn’t there some middle path of deleting the post and PMing the author that they should restate their point without daring to get banned?

[anon23281680]

That’s because so many people try to hide racism/sexism/all the other isms behind the assertion that they refuse to be politically correct.
I have had to explain to several boomers that things they said were racist.

[robulus]

@Banabanana

We get to see how universally the rules are applied.

They’re not applied equally at all. That was made clear in the first few posts.

[Banabanana]

Okay. It’s a fine experiment. I’d prefer not to argue intractably; I do understand why you feel so strongly about the subject. The emotions involved in the topic, the constant stream of misinformation out there, all of it has made discourse on Michael Brown’s death nearly impossible.

[dmsplat]

So, @beschizza - why does @robulus get away with it where others don’t?

Is it all about being in with the in-crowd?

I’m just genuinely wondering.

[anon23281680]

@NickyG

Labelling people who have been fucked-over as “victims” is, in my opinion, totally dis-empowering to the individuals and/or groups who have been, yes, victimized. I know this sounds nonsensical, and hell, maybe it is. But I personally see a difference between a system that victimizes, and labelling individuals and groups as “victims.” Something about it sounds inhuman. It labels people as being weak.

I don’t think saying someone is a victim labels them as weak. Actually, assuming someone is a victim because they are weak or equating being a victim with being weak is another form of victim blaming. “If you were stronger, this wouldn’t have happened to you.” Waaaay too much like “if you had just fought back…”
A victim is someone who has had something bad done to them by someone else. It doesn’t make the person weak.

[robulus]

I might not. I might get pinged for it.

Edit: for the sake of transparency, I have been asked by a mod to stop being a dick (my words). Order and justice prevails.

[BZMacLachlan]

What’s the proper description of this sort of style? Passive-aggressive? Insinuatingly superior? It seems to be the new hot thing in trollery, but, while it’s easy to recognize, it’s not entirely easy to explain.

[daneel]

@jonbly

Is resisting arrest deserving of death by cop?

No. Easy-as-pie.

@jonbly

Is assaulting a police officer deserving of death by cop?

No. Easy-as-pie.

@dmsplat

why does @robulus get away with it where others don’t?

Is it all about being in with the in-crowd?

I’m just genuinely wondering.

@beschizza

The thing is, though, it’s so easy to get away with being all of those things here, because we love entertaining assholes. Ones with panache and good humor get to hang around. It prevents stagnation. It surprises us with its charm and incisive differentiation. We cultivate them, even: I’m sure one or two of you regulars will have wondered now and again “why isn’t that complete asshole banned?” Because they’re marked for survival.

Until something goes wrong, obviously! But hey. What’s rule 1? Be Cool.

[anon23281680]

It wasn’t just what the banned commenter said, but how he said it. If he had phrased what he wanted to say in a less inflammatory and trolly way, he probably wouldn’t have been banned.

[SamSam]

@bgrahame

in this case, possibly more by luck than judgement, the cop was in the right

In what possible way? Because he was an (unarmed) thief, the cop was right to shoot him?