File: 1605146209315.jpg (575.91 KB, 1476x2202, 246:367, 00e60fcdebe761df695198f71e….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Can we just get rid of /townhall/ and have a sweeping ban on politics in general already?
In fact can we just get mods who have a spine to recognize that other users threats to be uncivil if politics are brought up at all and shifting blame for their shitty behavior is a form of abusive manipulation?
One major difference is that chainwall threads are tonally neutral. Whether it blows up comes down to other users interacting properly in that space or not. The threads made by others were not neutral, they would reasonably be upsetting to certain users.
I wouldn't try to make your point by saying that chainwall has privileges others don't. I would come at this from the perspective that strict neutrality isn't a great site policy in these times and that not all political ideas are equal.
File: 1605271582116.gif (1.77 MB, 537x497, 537:497, f11.gif) ImgOps Google
>>6941>threats to be uncivil if politics are brought up at all >is abusive manipulation
Fuck yes it is.
Like how who won the presidency is out of bounds. Its a current event. Some people dont like that event. The same people who got their day to dance in the streets a few years back, and now they are just sore losers. So we cant discuss who the fucking next president is.
Yes, mods who can see the difference between banning politics and banning current events would be useful, if we had any.
File: 1605282332348.png (728.76 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, 1477112525357.png) ImgOps Google
The threads against which the mods took action were celebrating
the result of the election --- the thread OP was implying "it is good that candidate X won and candidate Y lost", which invites disagreement and the sort of political animosity that the no-politics rule seeks to avoid. A thread topic such as "How (if at all) will Joe Biden's election affect your stock-investing strategy?" would probably have been allowed.
File: 1605286012443.png (117.58 KB, 217x217, 1:1, pinkie G3 a rose for me.PNG) ImgOps Google
Knowing how volatile politics are on Ponyville and how sensitive people can be, people should know to go to /townhall/ when they want to seek arguments and debates out and stay on /pony/ when they don't feel like.
A dedicated politics mod could be interesting for /townhall/, but I don't think there is any reason to scrap the board.>>6947
That to me is a different point.
While every thread can be political in one way or another, we should still be careful to keep themes that incite political discussions and arguments on /townhall/ to avoid bringing the polemic to the leisure boards.
While elections and their outcome can be exciting and be approached with silliness, it simply is too big a hazard to keep on /pony/.
I'll leave it at the mods discretion what they want to move, although i'll be salty when my threads would fall there as well.
If you feel like making a thread to celebrate election results, it would be better to create a celebration thread and let people post celebration stuff. But not to mention politics or bring up the subject.
And, probably not sassilly bringing up politics anways.
Yes, take discussion to the toxic no-name board. Where people who have names can ignore them.>>6948
Yes i appreciate how you feel tonally neutral while discussing AK47s as entities who are equal in ability to suffer as people. So i don't think your way is a good role model.
I can CELEBRATE my candidates victory as a current event that is going to stop a very real loss of life. If the new president promised to setup some emergency healthcare for AK47s then maybe you would understand why these particular words have a real meaning to some.
Further Manleys thread had none of the escalation mine did and his went straight to /rock so its dusinformation to say that my tone is why current event topics are being trashed by mods.
File: 1605299150755.gif (1003.1 KB, 540x540, 1:1, SpiderKyouko.gif) ImgOps Google
>>6950>Yes i appreciate how you feel tonally neutral while discussing AK47s as entities who are equal in ability to suffer as people.
When I speak of "gun rights", I don't mean that guns themselves have rights; I'm referring to the right of people
to possess and carry guns.>>6950>Further Manleys thread had none of the escalation mine did
But it was still implying "it is good that candidate X
won and candidate Y
lost", which predictably annoyed those posters who had voted for candidate Y
You know i am not talking about gun rights, Chain. I know you remember and so does everyone else.
Manley implied no such thing, or did my description of his thread not make that clear?
File: 1605312500402.jpg (31.51 KB, 294x346, 147:173, 42bb00939807d45580cf07d903….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
So the problem was my stinking attitude, only.
Shall we make a test?https://ponyville.us/pony/res/1064316.html#q1064316
You know i do love u Chainwall u silly pony.
>>6952>You know i am not talking about gun rights, Chain.
Well, what are
referring to, if you're not rehashing [>>>/townhall/7865, >>>/townhall/7872, >>>/townhall/7880, >>>/townhall/7882]? I've never said anything remotely like "AK47s [are] entities who are equal in ability to suffer as people".>>6952>Manley implied no such thing
Interpreted literally, his post didn't imply it, but he appears to have been using the rhetorical device known as praeteritio
File: 1605312882341.png (365.24 KB, 1080x2160, 1:2, Screenshots_2020-11-13-16-….png) ImgOps Google
NOW how bout that. It wasnt just me that is out of line. What do you think chain?
File: 1605314407032.jpg (906.49 KB, 1000x1300, 10:13, 2fe02441a9a7f64bcab29d5f0b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6953>So the problem was my stinking attitude, only.
No. The problem (as I said in >>6948
) is that your thread "invites disagreement and the sort of political animosity that the no-politics rule seeks to avoid".>>6955
Come on, you didn't really think that that thread wouldn't fall under the "no politics" rule, did you?
Of course i did.
File: 1606690465457.jpg (24.54 KB, 287x512, 287:512, f12939c72b3a0749e8874d1440….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6941>sweeping ban on politics in general
You realize that any mention of non-heteronormativeness of any kind is political.
You are asking to ban that from the site?
Just because something is affected by politics doesn't make the subject political. E.g., I can make a thread about my new AR-15 lower receiver and parts kit, but I can't complain about politicians trying to ban AR-15s.
- Talking about assembling my rifle
- Casual discussion of the relative merits of nitrided barrels vs chrome-lined barrels
- Talking about how the pandemic has influenced prices
- Talking about how fear of future gun-control laws is affecting prices
- Expressing an opinion of existing or proposed gun-control laws
Does that make sense?
Honestly Chain the question was directed at the OP.
Also i am aware of your position. Restating it 1000 times wont make it meritorious in my opinion so politely and respectfully please stop derailing my posts.
Additionally i will ask you to never address me about weapons ever again unless we are specifically discussing weapons. Analogies are fallacies and your focus on that one makes me uncomfortable.
File: 1606703156100.jpg (72.2 KB, 437x600, 437:600, 193704.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>7159>Honestly Chain the question was directed at the OP.
On public imageboards, it is not uncommon for other users to chime in with potentially helpful information.>>7159>Also i am aware of your position. Restating it 1000 times wont make it meritorious in my opinion
I wasn't aware that you were aware; I thought you weren't understanding the distinction. If you think that my understanding of the rule is wrong, please say what you think the rule is, and hopefully the mods will correct whichever one of us is wrong (or both). I'm just trying to help you avoid running afoul of the rules.>>7159>Additionally i will ask you to never address me about weapons ever again unless we are specifically discussing weapons. Analogies are fallacies and your focus on that one makes me uncomfortable.
Not sure what you mean by "analogies" or "fallacies" in relation to my post above, but if talk of weapons makes you uncomfortable, I'll try to remember to try to give a different example next time.
As far as YOU have enforced the rules perhaps.
There had been no new threads on /canterlot before you enforced them so. Now what had been quiet for months has become an issue again.
Perhaps this pattern should mean something to you.
>>7166>they seem to agree
Well i cant argue against that.
I assume no one will object to this being my last post on this board on this topic. I hope to make it so.