Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech

I don't think he's saying they should set off bombs. I think he's saying that the Left are violent, and this is them "behaving".

I was summoned.

Yes, cooking threads are a fine idea.

Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks

Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks

Comment Reported for: Rule 15 - Slurs

Comment Approved: You're allowed to call each other "idiots"

Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Disinformation

Possibly, but more likely a troll because this is all obviously disprovable

Post Reported for: Spam or Self Promotion

So, not exactly. This is just OP re-stating his own comment. It's effectively a self-post.

Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks

Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks

Do not say that being a woman removes all alleged positives.

Okay, I'll take that as an unwillingness to follow the rules.

Just to be clear, telling users to kill themselves is a violation of Rule 2 and 3. Would you mind being a bit more clear with what you are trying to say?

Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

Comment Reported for: Rule 3 - Harassment (x2)

Comment Removed for: Rule 3 - Harassment

Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks

This looks like a sarcastic comment making fun of Leftists pretending to be jews.

Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech

Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech

Do not endorse murdering children because you think they are jews.

And I hand out bans for harassment too. Because sometimes adults don't act like adults. I'm trying to give people the benefit of the doubt.

You're adults and you can handle yourselves on the internet, it shouldn't be something I should involve myself in.

They're not typically handshakes as he has about a bajillion accounts, though some of them are which is insanely confusing.

Post Reported for: Rule 12 - Disinformation

This isn't really true, but I'm not surprised OP is confused with how the media is handling this press release from the DOJ. Apologies for the long sticky, but I believe it's necessary.

Here is the archive of the DOJ's statement: https://archive.is/Yb32f#selection-1951.13-1951.757

3 People have been charged with "murder for hire", "conspiracy to commit murder for hire", and "money laundering conspiracy" regarding a US journalist (who originates from Iran). Not Trump. Their names are as follows:

• Farhad Shakeri - Iranian
• Carlisle Rivera - US Citizen
• Jonathon Loadholt - US Citizen

The DOJ press release does not state the two US citizen's religiosity or ethnicity.

Mr. Shakeri stated to "law enforcement" the following information:

• He was tasked by the Iranian government to assassinate US and Israeli citizens
• He was tasked with surveilling two jewish US citizens.
• The Iranian government requested he provide a plan to assassinate Donald Trump. Mr. Shakeri said he had no intention of providing such a plan by the deadline the Iranian government gave him.

I think the media is conflating Rivera and Loadholt with the two targets of surveillance. They are not clearly involved with any attempt on Donald Trump's life. Shakeri is not charged with any crime related towards actions against Donald Trump.

I genuinely don't try to monitor local beefs between users until they make it my issue.

He had no history in this forum and there's a auto-filter that auto-removes comments from new users.

My concern was that he was some troll coming over from one forum to another to start shit. But if he's okay, I'll approve his comments.

As crazy as the feds are, we both know you would have been targeted with hat crap.

Comment Reported for:

• Rule 10 - Breaking .WIN sites
• Platform Misuse

Comment Removed for: Trolling by trying to start a flame war, and Rule 16 - Identity Attacks.

Not even a strike, not that it would matter.

See the answer I gave you to one of your other replies.

Give me a wrong name, and then shit on me for using it. Nice.

That wasn't your actual question. But here's your answer. The post is explicitly invoking the stereotype that it is the inherent trait of jews that they will always claim to be victims while attacking others. He insinuates that this incident is an extension of that with the Twitter post alleging that there is a jewish media campaign to protect jewish violence. That that hooliganism is the attack, where the jews will claim they are the victims.

Yes, I understand intent and context. Yes, you understand intent and context. You demand that I refuse understand intent and context while I enforce the rules. You assert my intent and invent context for me and everyone else whenever you read other people's comments or complain about my actions. Your issue is exclusively to moderation: under no circumstance should intent or context be considered relevant to any enforcement action, this includes all possible forms additional meaning including but not limited to: coded language, inuendo, abstraction, patterns of behavior, previously stated intentions, vague threats, etc.

We're not going to get passed this block. You will continue to berate and insult me because you do not believe that moderation should ever consider intent and context. I believe moderation should consider intent and context. I believe that evidence exists which allows moderators to determine intent and context. There is no middle-ground on this. There is no reason for further discussion on it, because this is the same conversation we've been having for several years. I do not accept your position because I see it as completely irrational and intentionally building holes into rules so that they effectively cease to exist. I do not believe that you, or anyone else, would ever hold to such a standard because it is utterly counter-productive to having a rule exist in the first place. I also recognize that your position will never change on this. Thus, there is no further point to this line of conversation.