You may have noticed a distinct lack of return2ozma. This is due to their admitting, in a public comment, that their engagement here is in bad faith:
I'm sure there will be questions, let me see if I can address the most obvious ones:
- Can I still post negative stuff about Biden?
Absolutely! We have zero interest in running an echo chamber. However, if ALL you're posting is negative, you may want to re-think your priorities. You get out of the world what you put into it and all that.
- Why now?
Presumption of innocence. It may be my own fault, but I do try to think the best of people, and even though they were posting negative articles, they weren't necessarily WRONG. Biden's poll numbers, particularly in minority demographics ARE in the shitter. They are starting to get better, but he still has a hell of a hill to climb.
- Why a 30 day temp ban and not a permanent ban?
The articles return2ozma shared weren't bad, faked, or from some wing-nut bias site like "beforeitsnews.com", they were legitimate articles from established and respected news agencies, pointing out the valid problems Biden faces.
The problem was ONLY posting the negatives, over and over and then openly admitting that dishonest enagement is their purpose.
Had they all been bullshit articles? It would not have taken anywhere near this much time to lay the ban and it would have been permanent.
30 days seems enough time for them to re-think their strategery and come back to engage honestly.
"Biden doesn’t have enough slips to merit the number of negative posts"
He's specifically supporting his argument that some accounts criticizing biden are bad-faith actors, by providing an example of what he doesn't consider to be bad faith (the difference being generalized support with some loud criticisms). I don't think I misrepresented him at all, and mozz and I discussed it at length, if you care to read it
Yeah, and you infantilized something he's reiterated in like 6 or 7 different ways to "there's too much anti-biden coverage here". Those two are not equivalent, and you omitting the second part of the sentence proves that you know it.
You did. You took:
...and turned it into "It’s ok to criticize Biden so long as you still generally support him". Those two arguments are not in any way the same.
Why do you keep doing that? Why can't you engage with the words as they're written in black and white?
This is pointless. I linked to the comment I was referring to. Either it was something he wrote or it wasn't, but I don't care to argue with you if it was fair of me to single out that one comment or if he didn't really mean it. He took issue with Ozma's repeated posting of anti-biden articles because he 'had an agenda' that was not reflective of the overall coverage of Biden. It was only too many posts because it was allegedly not representative of overall coverage, e.g. 'too many relative to positive coverage'. Tell me where i'm screwing that up, I want to know. If it was simply 'too many posts' then fucking say so, but it seems pretty clearly about the perspective ozma was pushing.
I'll wait for you to explain it to me, then, because to me the gist of that statement is 'it's normal to critique biden, but i find it suspicious if they also aren't saying good things about him'. I'll permit that I did exaggerate it to make a point, but the thrust of his argument is absolutely represented in my re-framing.
Because explaining why someone's statement or argument is problematic requires restating it in a way that shows the problem clearer. If I just copy-pasted his comment into mine I wouldn't really be engaging it, it'd just be parroting it.
No, if he didn't really say it. There you go again.
If the disproportionate content itself were the determining factor, the ban would have happened 11 months ago. It's not the content, it's the admission that the behavior was intentionally provocative. You reiterating that as "there’s too much anti-biden coverage here" is a misrepresentation of what's been clearly stated. There’s too much anti-Biden coverage here from this single user who has explicitly admitted to being an agitator. Anti-Biden coverage from anyone else is obviously fair game, because there's shitloads of it.
Yes, you did exaggerate the point, and it's again because you got so caught up in his example that you missed the point of the example. The suspicion, again as it's clearly written in black and white, is in the dishonesty:
It's clearly the same point jordan is making, and in both cases you're glaring at the leaves of the trees and refusing to see the forest.
Yes, restating it. Not strawmanning it.
Agitation isn't against the rules as far as I can see, and I'm of the opinion that agitation is an essential part of political activity.
Educate. Agitate. Organize.
If the behavior in this context is not itself against the rules or bannable, then what is the standard that makes it so? If I said "i think people are too mean to Biden", and I then exclusively post pro-biden articles (lets say the same number of times as Ozma), have I also broken the rule? Wouldn't I still be agitating for some perspective? Or would I have to post a certain number of good things? Or is it just a number of posts generally? Or can I admit that I have a bias but i'm required to balance my negative contributions with positive contributions?
It is the subjective, arbitrary standard of the ban that I'm specifically taking issue with. It is my opinion that simply having a bias and clearly acting in accordance to that bias is not worthy of any kind of ban, 30 days or permanent or otherwise. A lot of people having complained about that user isn't enough by itself for a ban, he had to have broken some kind of rule. What rule was that and what is the standard for it? How do I personally ensure I do not break that rule?
If you found my re-framing to be ridiculous, it's because I found the original statement to be ridiculous. You're free to argue for that viewpoint yourself, but I'll just tell you now, I don't think good-or-bad-faith has anything to do with stating only good or bad things about someone, or the ratio of good or bad things said, or even outright saying that "I don't like the candidate and prefer only pointing out the bad things I don't like".
What I said: "It’s not the content, it’s the admission that the behavior was intentionally provocative."
What you responded: "If the behavior in this context is not itself against the rules or bannable"
It's not the content. It's the behavior
If the behavior is not against the rules.
Do you see the disconnect? I can't help but think you're trying very hard not to read what other people are writing to you.
Edit: Apparently I'm not the only one who noticed.
Am I allowed to agitate my perspective if i'm polite, am open to discussion, and as long as I'm not 'trolling'? Or are you defining 'trolling' and 'bad faith' in some way that includes being provocative generally? A post can be intentionally provocative and not be in any way disrespectful or be in bad faith, and it can (and if it's effective, should) foster discussion. You have yet to describe any objective standard for how this breaks the rules, only that he was 'intentionally provocative'. That doesn't strike me as breaking any of the rules you just mentioned.
Yea, I'm familiar with the feeling. I'll say it again because I don't think it's adequately sunk in yet:
So no, you don't see it. You've ignored too much of what I'm saying for me to be interested in putting energy into another reply that you'll refuse to engage with.
Have a good one.