Opinion of the tempbanned poster: GeneralMacArthur

[TheTide]

I like him on the basis that he (to paraphrase Marco Rubio) dispels with the notion that people with 'moderate' politics are inherently more reasonable, rational and level-headed. 

[fhtagn]

HP, but the post some people are clutching pearls over didn't warrant a ban.

[Fuzzy Bear]

HP, but the post some people are clutching pearls over didn't warrant a ban.

The underlined part is a bottom line for me.

His last interaction with me was one where he actually showed a smidgen of non-arrogant humanity, which suggests that he's a person who really has trouble not viewing his arguments as personal here.  Unlike Badger (whom 5 of his last 10 posts at this writing are personal attacks), he makes an effort to control that aspect of his persona.  He's hit me hard (verbally) at times, but I've given it back on occasion.

Comparing GMac to Badger is a useful exercise.  GMac has nowhere near the number of posts whose content is pure personal attacks that Badger's have.  And it's Badger that gets personal; the other poster is usually responding to his ad hominem attacks. 

That's the big flaw of Atlas Moderation today; they will infract posts that, essentially, oppose the "favored" side of an issue over the "disfavored" side of an issue (regardless of who's right and wrong) and issue sanctions, but posters like Badger, whose primary purpose is to personally attack posters, are rewarded when the targets are "disfavored" targets.  (The number of issues that have a race/gender/ethnic aspect to them is at a high point in an era of Identity Politics, worldwide.)  If I took the posture here of personally attacking as my primary raison d'etaire, I'd have had a permaban by now.  We've sanctioned GMac, but we allow a poster (Badger), who's primary function is to call people names here that are often false and libelous.  No one in the Mod Cave really has the moral authority to call anyone out on being any of the "bad person" label as long as Badger is allowed to remain unchallenged in his present self-defined role.

[Pro-Israel, anti-Bibi]

HP, but the post some people are clutching pearls over didn't warrant a ban.

The underlined part is a bottom line for me.

His last interaction with me was one where he actually showed a smidgen of non-arrogant humanity, which suggests that he's a person who really has trouble not viewing his arguments as personal here.  Unlike Badger (whom 5 of his last 10 posts at this writing are personal attacks), he makes an effort to control that aspect of his persona.  He's hit me hard (verbally) at times, but I've given it back on occasion.

Comparing GMac to Badger is a useful exercise.  GMac has nowhere near the number of posts whose content is pure personal attacks that Badger's have.  And it's Badger that gets personal; the other poster is usually responding to his ad hominem attacks. 

That's the big flaw of Atlas Moderation today; they will infract posts that, essentially, oppose the "favored" side of an issue over the "disfavored" side of an issue (regardless of who's right and wrong) and issue sanctions, but posters like Badger, whose primary purpose is to personally attack posters, are rewarded when the targets are "disfavored" targets.  (The number of issues that have a race/gender/ethnic aspect to them is at a high point in an era of Identity Politics, worldwide.)  If I took the posture here of personally attacking as my primary raison d'etaire, I'd have had a permaban by now.  We've sanctioned GMac, but we allow a poster (Badger), who's primary function is to call people names here that are often false and libelous.  No one in the Mod Cave really has the moral authority to call anyone out on being any of the "bad person" label as long as Badger is allowed to remain unchallenged in his present self-defined role.

Fuzzy,
You realize that if anybody wrote this spiel about you (which would be reasonable given the declining quality and increased toxicity of your content here over the past several years) you would be in the user complaints thread in about three minutes melting down and calling for their account to be wiped out, right?
For some reason you feel like you have a license to go on crusades and vendettas against individual users (including myself) and then claim that you're a victim and would be banned if you didn't "restrain yourself." Are you thinking this makes your perceived opponents respect you? It does not.

[Fuzzy Bear]

HP, but the post some people are clutching pearls over didn't warrant a ban.

The underlined part is a bottom line for me.

His last interaction with me was one where he actually showed a smidgen of non-arrogant humanity, which suggests that he's a person who really has trouble not viewing his arguments as personal here.  Unlike Badger (whom 5 of his last 10 posts at this writing are personal attacks), he makes an effort to control that aspect of his persona.  He's hit me hard (verbally) at times, but I've given it back on occasion.

Comparing GMac to Badger is a useful exercise.  GMac has nowhere near the number of posts whose content is pure personal attacks that Badger's have.  And it's Badger that gets personal; the other poster is usually responding to his ad hominem attacks.  

That's the big flaw of Atlas Moderation today; they will infract posts that, essentially, oppose the "favored" side of an issue over the "disfavored" side of an issue (regardless of who's right and wrong) and issue sanctions, but posters like Badger, whose primary purpose is to personally attack posters, are rewarded when the targets are "disfavored" targets.  (The number of issues that have a race/gender/ethnic aspect to them is at a high point in an era of Identity Politics, worldwide.)  If I took the posture here of personally attacking as my primary raison d'etaire, I'd have had a permaban by now.  We've sanctioned GMac, but we allow a poster (Badger), who's primary function is to call people names here that are often false and libelous.  No one in the Mod Cave really has the moral authority to call anyone out on being any of the "bad person" label as long as Badger is allowed to remain unchallenged in his present self-defined role.

Fuzzy,
You realize that if anybody wrote this spiel about you (which would be reasonable given the declining quality and increased toxicity of your content here over the past several years) you would be in the user complaints thread in about three minutes melting down and calling for their account to be wiped out, right?
For some reason you feel like you have a license to go on crusades and vendettas against individual users (including myself) and then claim that you're a victim and would be banned if you didn't "restrain yourself." Are you thinking this makes your perceived opponents respect you? It does not.

The posters you have mentioned are posters who have crossed lines and personally attacked me using issues about my family.  All of them received amazingly light sanctions and are generally unrepentant.

MasterJedi.  Ferguson97.  IndyTexas come to mind.  ag wished harm on my entire family here; he voluntarily left the site.

I have apologized to you for calling you a "Hamas Supporter".  I was wrong there and I've said so.  I would point out that none of posters I've mentioned have ever acknowledged that they crossed a line.  (Ferguson97's said he would apologize if the Mods required him to.  Think about that sentiment openly expressed.)

I will not tolerate personal attacks against me that are libelous.  I report those posts, and I will defend myself against libel.  Badger is a poster who does this to me and to other posters;

I will not tolerate personal attacks referencing my family.  We have a Forum Community where people discuss all sort of things of a more personal nature.  I have never used something said there against posters, yet others have not afforded me that level of decency.  You wouldn't tolerate this, either.  Nor should anyone else.

GMac has his faults, but he hasn't done what I've mentioned here, and he's not Badger.  And I'm not Badger, either.