I tried to stop banning him. He's the only one that several of you have explicitly spoken out to try and get unbanned. He refuses to even modify his comments after removal so they can be re-instated.
At the end of the day, it is his choice how he wishes to interact.
Comment Reported for: Bringing a typo in rule 4, "slacious"[sic] to your attention.
son of a bitch
Edit - okay, I fixed it.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Asserting that jews conspire to intentionally make porn and degeneracy to destroy civilizations as per Judeo-Bolshevism.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Asserting that jews worship satan and are inherently evil.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Approved: Scanning through the arguments, this is a claim about the AIPAC killing people, not jews as a racial concept.
Well, when the secondary purpose of the work camps is to ensure that the workers eventually are worked to death, regardless of the law, that would be extra-judicial.
Subversives like to deflect criticism to other people so they can continue subverting. Like getting you to blame jews, when Leftists engage in subversion.
Attacks against Canadians and Whites is not cool. I've said and enforced this multiple times.
Ethical or unethical actions is not a rule violation.
Sure, jan.
No, I got it.
Comment Removed For: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
You're going to have to stop asserting that all jews are inherently morally degenerate.
Point taken.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Approved: The only part of this comment that gets to this is the last part of "It makes me happy to see them in pain".
In this case, given the context of the rest of the comment, Kaarous is referring to emotional pain, and is not glorifying physical violence and suffering.
Post Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Post Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Vast, world-wide, racial conspiracy argument where jews are behind all actions of all peoples everywhere, and are bad.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Do not declare that jews are inherently degenerate.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Saying that jews exist does not necessitate an identity attack.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Do not declare Indians to be inherently immoral.
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Falsehoods
This appears to be more of an opinion via stereotype that explicit disinformation.
Comment Removed for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks & Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Yes killing civilians is a war crime, even if they are being used as a human shield. You can't actually shoot the hostage like you saw in the first Speed movie. No, you can't assert that Arabs are inherently morally inferior.
Comment Reported for: Rule 9 - Prohibited Content
Comment Approved: No, but it's a completely fucking retarded comment. Whole swathes of Eastern Ukraine have been leveled from consistent fighting for the past 10 years. Both sides have engaged in indiscriminate shelling from time to time.
Comment Reported for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
What the hell, Cato? You seem further than actual Cato.
Comment Removed for: Rule 2 - Violent Speech
If you want to argue for executing groomers, try arguing for judicial, rather than extra-judicial means.
Rule 16 is different from Rule 2.
There is a difference in discourse between the passions of argument and screaming for someone to "kill yourself". There is no discourse in arguing that your opponent should be murdered. It is, in fact, the appeal to ending an argument; not in exposing the truth in an argument. The argument is an explicit argument from violence, which is (by definition) an argument from power. There is no discourse in an argument from power, this is the basis of the Melian Dialogue. No debate can be had, no argument can be made, no counter-argument can defeat it. It is a demonstration of imminence in violence, meant to end the argument and intimidate the opposite side.
It's old now-a-days, but I remember the championship debate team arguing that white people should kill themselves under the topic of "should the US adopt a renewable energy strategy". They won the debate, because it's not a debate. It is, in fact, an appeal to power. It is "might makes right" which is neither a defeatable, nor debatable, nor falsifiable argument.
So no, Rule 2 stays, because an argument to violence is not anti-passivity; it's an argument to power to end the conversation and engage in violence.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks (x2)
This doesn't do that.