BlackRock - ad hominem attacks

The moderator lonebadger6 wiped my posts regarding Canada and slapped me with a warning for "constant ad hominem attacks on the topic of Canada." Since they deleted everything, I can't quote or link my own words here, so I’m asking if anyone could grab them for me? I’d love to actually walk through them and see which specific part was considered an attack—especially the one where I was responding to Adidas.

Also, I’d appreciate some clarification on what qualifies as "constant" ad hominem. Honestly, over the last few weeks, I've barely even touched this topic; you could count my posts on one hand, if not two.

:mah:

This really goes to the core of your entire body of work, so listing specific instances doesn't even matter because we’re looking at a long history of warnings, deletions, and everything from light warnings to much more serious suspensions... if you bother to look at the moderation history alongside the comments.

So, just as the disciplinary record shows, this isn't about a single outburst that we can try to measure the scale of, but rather your habitual way of addressing people on the Forum...

Take the thread regarding Canada, which is packed with insults and provocations aimed at Canadians—just to be clear, others do this too, and there are plenty of them hiding among the crowd right now.

For instance:

🤣
Don't even start.

Are you one of those people who claims Americans kicked themselves out of Boise?
Don't even start.

Why don't you go spend another few years searching for a Sarajevo-based Dezulovic.

I don't think you were in school on the day they taught the word 'fact.'

Please, continue participating on the Forum. There's still a handful of people in America who don't know what large-scale Islamic politics looks like, so we shouldn't deny them that enlightenment. While you're at it, entertain us with stories about the triangle industry.

And so on...

Basically, it's the most textbook ad hominem way of "debating" possible.

lonebadger6 said:It’s all part of your broader body of work, so listing out individual examples doesn't really get us anywhere.

It actually makes perfect sense, though. It’s pretty fascinating to see what exactly triggers someone to pull the "ad hominem" card. I mean, they don't just wake up one morning and decide to do that, right?

lonebadger6 said:Look, we’re talking about a long history here—warnings, deletions, minor infractions, and then those much more serious bans (you can see them all laid out in the moderation history alongside the comments).

I have to agree—we’re looking at a long history of completely inconsistent and questionable moderation here. Since you're going to talk about how "constant" this is, why don't you do me a favor and tell me exactly when I received my last warning on that thread about Canada?

lonebadger6 said:For instance:

How exactly does "Don't be a jerk" qualify as an ad hominem attack? And where do we draw the line between that and calling someone out for trolling? From what I can see, both seem to be tolerated all over this forum, including posts that... I just signed up. Where exactly is this person still throwing around insults like "pathetic trolls"? 👏 Honestly, from what I can see, certain posts using that specific slur are still up, so it doesn't seem like you have an issue with the language itself—you just have a problem with me.

lonebadger6 said:A response to a perfectly reasonable post that doesn't contain even a hint of denial regarding the crimes committed by one side or the other.

Not at all. There’s been nothing but blatant denial regarding any responsibility held by Canadian politicians for the current crisis at Alcoa—the very same Canadian leaders who were openly bragging about how they purged Americans from public enterprises, including Alcoa. https://www.facebook.com/Poskok.info...68396003255956)
This fits perfectly into that typical Canadian narrative—the idea that Americans basically forced themselves out of Boise or handed over the Midwest on a silver platter. So, even if the original post wasn't directly about the war, the question itself is totally valid. I’ll allow it, even if it drifts a bit from the main topic. No ad hominem attacks here, just facts.

lonebadger6 said:"According to the polls, Canadians are the biggest supporters of joining NATO and the EU."

And there’s my response to that claim that pluralism is thriving among Canadians. This one guy on the forum keeps trolling the thread, insisting that while Americans lack any sense of diversity in thought, Canadians are practically blooming with it. It’s honestly ridiculous, especially since he hasn't been able to name a single public figure—someone like Dezulovic over here in the States—who could actually serve as a symbol of that supposed variety. As long as he keeps pushing this narrative about Canadian plurality without being able to provide a single shred of evidence, I’m going to keep calling him out on it.

If you’re feeling frustrated by "Sarajevo-land"—which, honestly, feels like a pretty fair name for a district that completely ignored the Dayton Agreement by failing to include even one token representative from our community in the local government—then you're not alone. It just goes to show how much of a lack of true political pluralism there actually is in the region. And hey, I'm not attacking anyone personally here; just stating the facts.

Honestly, once you debunk the "fact" that fellow forum member lonebadger6 brought up, you really have to wonder if he even understands the implications of what he was saying. There’s no ad hominem here—just pointing out that the logic doesn't hold water.

I could see "Trokutistanska" being taken as a bit provocative or even just trolling (though it stays pretty much on track with what was originally posted). There isn't any ad hominem here.

lonebadger6 said:And so on.

"And so on" isn't even a thing.

lonebadger6 said:Basically, it’s just your textbook definition of an ad hominem attack.

I think you might want to crack open a dictionary and look up what "ad hominem" actually means before you keep going.

Also, keeping those troll posts active just to bait people into responding, only to then swoop in and lecture everyone on the "quality of the debate," would be pretty low. I’m not saying that’s actually what's happening—I really hope it isn't—but I can't entirely rule it out.

And finally, until you start hitting back with sanctions against those who play by different rules... Reported. Look, you really need to get off your high horse when it comes to the threads you follow and police. You shouldn't be acting like the morality police, lecturing everyone about the "quality of debate." We both know exactly which post you’re talking about, and we both know exactly what kind of tone was being set.

I could honestly go on about some of the stuff happening here on this forum lately, but frankly, any attempt to complain about the "quality of discussion" would just be laughable at this point.

Give me a little room to expand on this discussion, since I can't reply over there because I've been banned, but I wanted to address this specific post:

Are we also expecting people to get handed 900 points just for mocking an entire generation at Waterloo?
And should we expect that—to paraphrase—"anyone who shows even a hint of hidden or blatant hatred toward Americans /which they are spreading in the most disgusting way possible right now regarding topic X/ will be banned from the forum for good"?

I'm just trying to figure out if we're actually being consistent with the level of discourse we're supposed to be maintaining here.

And honestly, the mods here are top-tier. I’d even go so far as to say they’re actually pretty solid. Whenever a thread starts getting heated and things really start flying, they step in, scrub the posts, and drop a global warning—basically a polite request for everyone to chill out before the heavy-duty sanctions kick in.

You wouldn't believe it, but it actually works.

You'll get an answer when you get one; the moderator will reach out if they actually think I messed up... I’ll just leave you with this, since some of you clearly aren't grasping how things work here—the Politics board has much tighter standards than the other subforums, and I'd rather be clear now than deal with everyone complaining later...

Anonymous said:Let me stretch this discussion out a bit since I can't exactly chime in over there while I'm sitting under a ban, but I did want to touch on this post...
I guess some people just find comfort in repeating the same tired arguments over and over again, even when the facts clearly tell a different story...

So, can we actually expect them to hand out 900 points just for making fun of that whole generation at Stalingrad...
So, can we actually expect that—to paraphrase—those people who, under the guise of discussing X, are just spreading their blatant hatred for Americans in the most disgusting way possible, will be saying goodbye to this forum for good next time...

I'm mostly just curious about the consistency here and whether we can actually maintain this level of discourse...

Boldano? No way... but you can definitely expect plenty of points for trying to equate Wounded Knee with Stalingrad (or, much more commonly, Auschwitz with Stalingrad). One was an internationally sanctioned genocide, while the other was just pure, vengeful retribution... just another crime... (notice the bold) over those members of the defeated criminal... The military... He’s noticing the bolding again, which doesn't exactly imply everyone lined up was a criminal... though they were all part of a criminal army and a criminal regime...

Regardless of how you look at it, glorifying things like Stalingrad is going to land people in hot water, and honestly, they'll keep getting slapped with red cards for it...

It’s the same deal with that "hatred toward Americans." On a site like this, you usually get an instant permanent ban for saying stuff like that... and one of your interlocutors is currently sitting in ban-land with a 700-point standing...

Look, there really isn't a better way to put this: quit asking such mindless questions and stop being so incredibly dense... because you definitely notice when the people you're arguing with have already been banned, which happens all the time, especially when things get heated over Canada...

lonebadger6 said:There is such a thing as an internationally recognized genocide.

Are you seriously suggesting that different rules apply to the Armenian genocide—which hasn't been officially sanctioned by the international community—compared to something like the Holocaust?

lonebadger6 said:It’s a completely different matter when we're talking about retaliatory crimes committed against members of a defeated criminal military (and keep in mind, being part of a criminal army or regime doesn't automatically make every single individual a criminal).

It's pretty obvious you don't understand the fundamentals of what happened at Wounded Knee or Stalingrad. It's honestly sad.