It’s more that they’re being dicks, but sure.
And supporting the war is not the same as thinking the assassination of Putin would solve everything.
Well said.
This is an important distinction to draw.
One can support the war - and support Ukraine's right to exist as a sovereign nation - while deploring a post that calls for the assassination of Mr Putin.
We're only being dicks because we're defending a position you don't support, get off the name calling.
Your position is indefensible, and what is worse, you are unable to defend it - or accept disagreement - without lashing out with intemperate posts where insult is confused with argument.
I found these very helpful:
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/ and
https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world/
From
The 5000-Year Leap by Skousen: both ways of thinking are needed to govern: Without the right, we'd go broke. Without the left, we wouldn't have empathy for others.
What kind of world do we want to live in? Do we even have a choice? I think we do. But, it takes commanding vision to get there.
I have been consumed with thoughts of getting rid of those that I see as opposed to my way of thinking in the US national sphere. I also know that is a wrong and potentially evil way of thinking and I oppose that in my mind when it comes up. Doesn't hurt that there is no way to accomplish anything I think of. But, there are those who
do have the power, and I fear for my country when I see those people on the rise to power.
Countries gain in moral authority when they do the right things and suffer when they do the wrong things.
The Unites States has done many great things:
- showing the world how to run a free, democratic country (until lately)
- humanitarian efforts, public and private, around the world
- keeping the peace (but I wish we hadn't been so ham-handed about it recently (Iraq, Afghanistan))
but suffers when doing wrong:
- manifest destiny (destruction of native Americans)
- slavery and how to think about blacks in general
- empire-building (not in our general charter)
- the intentional destruction of countervailing power structures against big business and the super rich.
Israel did right when, instead of a Mossad hit, they successfully captured and tried Adolf Eichmann. I personally think they lost their moral mandate after Labour lost it's long running mandate after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and Likud took over. Netanyahu has been as corrosive to Israeli politics as Trump has been to ours.
South Africa did right and better by turning governance over to the blacks and setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to right long standing wrongs to the majority of the population. I wish we had one of those here.
Can the world do better? I do think that in the long run it would be better if Putin was brought to justice in a
legal manner into the International Court of Justice rather than in a
power manner via assassination. The US doesn't like the International Court of Justice, because some of their national deeds were evil. Fine. let those that were and are guilty suffer. Empire doesn't suit the American character and I'd like to see this country last longer than 300 years.
It took the help of an rightly inflexible graveyard cashier when I worked at the Park N Jet to show me that the invasion of Iraq was a grievous injustice and that we should have been in Afghanistan as a lightning stroke to get Bin Laden and nothing else. That really started me on the path from the right to the left. We can change our minds; I'm living proof.
Excellent, well argued and thoughtful post.
@lizkat's is also well worth reading closely.
No, I'm saying it because of the way you berated scepticalscribe and accused anyone who disagrees with your position of being a Putin supporter/Russian propagandist. My criticism is of your tactics and behavior, not your political position.
Exactly.
Deploring the idea of assassination does not - in any way - make one a supporter of what Russia (or Mr Putin) has done.
"bing a dick" is just "being a dick".......you can argue for your position without it
Again, exactly.
Well said.
You're free to disagree but if you continue with the these attacks you'll be getting a break, so chill out.
A threat?
Are you capable of tolerating disagreement, and dissent - and, indeed, name-calling, given that some of your own posts were a veritable model of intemperate insult - without recourse to exclusion, expulsion and use of the mod hammer?
EDIT: Since the post I cited was deleted for name-calling multiple forum members, I am removing the citation below.
Name-calling is the last refuge of those who have no merits to argue. This discussion started by saying we were bloodthirsty animals merely for suggesting killing murderous dictators like Hitler and Putin, who between them have murdered many millions of people, initiated wars against numerous countries, targeted civilians in war, used rape as a tool of war, committed genocide, taken tens of thousands of children from their parents, etc. Etc. Right off the bat it was name-calling instead of ”here’s the counter-argument.” You guys are pretty disappointing.
Nobody said you were "bloodthirsty animals" for "killing murderous dictators" - please do not put words in my - or anyone else's mouth.
What I have argued for is the rule of law.
Moderators shouldn't be participating in threads they're moderating.......when things get heated, it's obviously difficult for a moderator to moderate without getting overheated themselves.
Any sense of "fairness" disappears
Agreed.
This is a separate issue to that of the thread, but - over the two years that this site has existed - is something that I have noted occurs.
@Eric and
@Cmaier: You cannot be judge, jury, prosecutor and impassioned (if intemperate) participants in your own threads, and simultaneously maintain a sense of fairness.
Sometimes, there may be a contradiction - a conflict - between the positions required of a site owner (and/or mod) and that of an enthusiastic and engaged poster.
While, in a small site, I would not argue that mods exclude themselves, I would recommend that they pay even closer attention to their own posts.
Tossing insults around - and then threatening retribution by way of recourse to a mod's hammer when someone responds in like manner - doesn't just lack a "sense of fairness" (as
@Macky-Mac so rightly says), but is, instead, an abuse of power.
And this is not the first - or second - time that this has occurred on this site.
not really......moderators just have to resist participating in threads they're moderating. That's just part of the task.
Agreed.
Or, at the very least, control themselves, restrain their more erratic impulses, and try to exercise some thought before pressing "post".
Since Eric is the site owner, admin and primary moderator, he effectively moderates every thread, but (understandably) also wants to participate on his own site. Otherwise, and this is just from my perspective, why even bother? (i.e., it's not as if this site is for generating revenue - like, for example, The Verge - in fact, I'd suspect he loses money on keeping this site running, even with donations).
Yes, but to reiterate: You cannot credibly be judge, jury, prosecutor, enforcer and passionately engaged participant who is willing to use the powers of the former position to silence or shut up debate in the latter.
Or, of course, you can, but, to be candid, it is an utter (and all too often, capricious) abuse of power.
And, if
@Eric - or any other mod - is to engage in a thread as a participant, mistaking insult for debate - it ill behoves them to use their powers as staff members to silence (exclude, expel) those with whom they disagree, for, to do so, is an abuse of power.
Now, personally, I think your suspension - preceded by an ugly threat - of
@TBL is in poor form.
Not only is it unfair, it also comes across as extraordinarily capricious, and not a little intolerant.
