Title, as he hasn't posted in 3 days and the man almost lives on the site
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (75)
sorted by:
Title, as he hasn't posted in 3 days and the man almost lives on the site
On the one hand, the site is almost always far better quality with him gone. On the other hand, the reasons he gets banned are idiotic.
I have been so rude to him I feel it's meaningless to say I agree. But the answer among friends is to let time and debate serve as a crucible for truth. If that starts getting people banned then it suggests that the truth is a violation (say, hypothetically, of rule 16).
Whether Imp is right or wrong that women are mustache twirling villains, or further, at the center of a unifying conspiracy, is not relevant. At the root of it, he got banned for suggesting that ANYONE of ANY identity could HYPOTHETICALLY be up to ANYTHING bad. Newsflash: that rule applies to 99% of discussion in all the big wide world because every single person (A) has a personal identity and (B) is affected by the actions of others.
The rule is totally ubiquitous and therefore meaningless. It can only be imposed unfairly and at whim, because a fair and evenhanded enforcement would shut down the forum, or, at scale, the entire internet. It's everything you ever hated about the response to gamergate- INSIDE the GAMERGATE forum lol
No, he got banned for declaring that women (an entire demographic) were working as a cabal to control the world. Not just one, not just feminists, not just female teachers. All of those would have been fine. But, he didn't choose to do that, and focused on declaring an enemy class as an enemy cabal.
It's easy not to violate the rule, plenty of people know exactly how to avoid it because they do it all the time. In fact, Imp knows exactly how to do it, and actively refuses. That's his choice.
If he said 99.9% of women were in such a cabal, or 99.8%, or 99.7%... when does that go from violating this """""""""rule""""""""", to being in the clear?
If it's so important and so dependent on his naming ALL women, specifically every single woman, then lets ask him if my mom is not involved. If he says no, would you not either have to unban him, or else, admit to at least some degree the utter gatekeeping foolishness of the rule?
I say this knowing full well he might condemn my mother, but you understand the point I'm trying to make
I do understand the point your trying to make, but this isn't about perfect quantity, it's about declaring women to be a bourgeoisie, and the need for a sectarian class war against them.
That traps people in the identitarian framework which perpetuates the Leftist metanarrative. Sticking to specifics, rather than an applied historical dialectic means no rule gets violated, and you stay out of they hyper-reality of ideological sectarianism that the Left always exploits.