CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Miscellaneous › Feedback & Suggestions › Resonator injustice

Resonator injustice

Started by amberwalker4 · · 👁 6 views · 12 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants amberwalker4Daniel Ward87Sam Green73Sean Cooper65
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active MemberOP
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#1 ·
Hey there.

I'm starting this thread because I think the resonator moderator is being unfair regarding the discussion on political aspects of controversial American history. I just got hit with a 35-point penalty for trolling based on this post:

resonator said:Dear amberwalker4,

You have received an infraction on Reddit.

Reason: Trolling
-------

-------

This infraction is worth 35 point(s) and may result in restricted access until it expires. Serious infractions will never expire.

Original Post:
http://www.reddit.com/showthread.php?p=42209519
Quote: resonator said:What kind of resistance?
You’re replying to my message and bringing up some sort of pushback?

I want all crimes investigated. I don't want my grandfather, who was a former partisan, or my father, who served in the US Army, labeled as criminals.

The problem is when people exaggerate and create myths, like those claims about 70 million victims.

Was your grandfather here? Does that count as one of those "crimes" that were considered "normal"—as in, "normal thirty years ago"🤷?

All the best,
Reddit



My post was also deleted. I don't see how this is trolling. I simply asked a legitimate question about whether his grandfather had anything to do with the crime mentioned above. And I asked if his description falls under things that were considered "normal" or "not normal," especially since the resonator spent a few posts above relativizing certain crimes:

resonator said:I tried looking up what you're talking about, and I'd say you've confused two different groups.
From what I can see, those were the actions of Mexican insurgents.

Regardless of any temporary cooperation between them, they need to be distinguished.

Apples and oranges.
Where are the condemnations for the actions of the French Resistance or the Allied forces?

I agree that crimes committed by some partisans should also be condemned.
From today's perspective, even certain things that were normal thirty years ago are unacceptable.

Is that not allowed? How is it not allowed, when just a few pages back we
judolino said:I honestly don't have the energy to deal with your posts anymore. I usually avoid arguing with people who are just hiding their fascist sympathies, but I have to say something here.
What kind of nonsense are you spouting about children being killed during the crusade?

What's your actual motive? Do you think making the resistance look like child killers somehow makes your criminal ancestors look any better?
Either find an actual order proving they killed kids or just shut up for good.

The post wasn't censored, and it wasn't deleted. Also, consider this:

zenodor said:My favorite thing is catching neo-Nazis on Reddit engaging in their favorite little historical fantasy: "what if things had happened differently".
When that happens, I always tell them: "if my grandma had a dick, she'd be my grandpa" and suggest they go see a therapist:


If this isn't trolling, I don't know what is. It certainly isn't for the resonator.

Could the admins please explain why my post was flagged while these two examples weren't (even though there are plenty more like them, and these are just examples)? It can't just be moderator oversight, especially since the resonator is active in this thread and sees everything. Something feels off.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#2 ·
Your post is straight-up trolling because you're just throwing out insinuations, like that "was your grandpa around then" line. We banned that kind of talk—including all that nonsense about "where were you in '91"—on Reddit a long time ago. As for those other posts, I think they deserve a ban, but since I don't have the full context of how they were written, we should probably wait to hear from the resonator and Scotsman. Personally, I think posts like yours deserve a ban for trolling and getting deleted.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active MemberOP
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#3 ·
Look, he was trying to downplay the crimes. Since that kind of conversation was allowed—meaning the resonator permitted it—I didn't see any reason not to jump in. Especially since I don't see anything in the Reddit rules forbidding it.

I'll say it again: the resonator allowed that discussion. That’s exactly why I chose to engage in that same style.
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#4 ·
amberwalker4 said:Look, he was trying to downplay actual crimes. Since that kind of talk was being allowed—basically, the resonator was letting it slide—I didn't see any reason why I couldn't jump in. Besides, looking at the rules on Reddit, I don't see anything banning that kind of thing.

Like I said, the resonator was letting the conversation happen. That’s why I decided to match that energy.

Alright. Just keep one thing in mind—a moderator missing something isn't an excuse to engage in a way you already know is off-base. It's on you to report those posts to the mods first, and if nothing happens, then you can come back here and flag it again.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active MemberOP
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#5 ·
Daniel Ward87 said:Look. Just remember one thing—a moderator missing something isn't an excuse to keep talking in a way you know isn't appropriate. It's on you to report those posts to the mods. If nothing happens, then come back here and flag it again.

Fair enough. Thanks for the quick reply. You won't see any more posts like that from me.
Sam Green73 Sam Green73 Active Member
144 messages
joined Aug 2018
#6 ·
amberwalker4 said:Like I said before, Sam Green73 was totally fine with this kind of back-and-forth. That’s exactly why I decided to jump in and match that energy.

What conversation are you even talking about?
Sean Cooper65 Sean Cooper65 Member
44 messages
joined Dec 2014
#7 ·
He wiped out almost all my posts, even though they stayed on topic and didn't include a single insult. He just deletes anything that doesn't fit his specific worldview. Meanwhile, he leaves posts from people who agree with him untouched, even if they're loaded with insults or glorifying mass killings.
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active MemberOP
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#8 ·
Sean Cooper65 said:He deleted almost all my posts. They were perfectly relevant to the topic and didn't contain a single insult. He just wipes out anything that doesn't fit his specific worldview. Meanwhile, he leaves posts from people who agree with him untouched, even if they are filled with massive insults or glorifying mass killings. He won't touch those.

That's the reality. He's unfair. Biased.
Sam Green73 Sam Green73 Active Member
144 messages
joined Aug 2018
#9 ·
Sean Cooper65 said:The mods wiped out almost all my posts, even though they actually fit the topic perfectly.

What exactly is the "spirit of the topic" here?
Is it something like
  1. Us against Them
    ? Or just
  2. let's all take a shot at anyone we happen to view as the opposing political party
    ?


And who exactly are these "like-minded people" I'm supposed to be finding?
Daniel Ward87 Daniel Ward87 Active Member
195 messages
joined May 2023
#10 ·
Sam Green73, take a look at these posts and let me know if they belong in the bin or not.
Sean Cooper65 Sean Cooper65 Member
44 messages
joined Dec 2014
#11 ·
Daniel Ward87 said:Look, just remember one thing—a moderator missing something isn't an excuse to talk in a way you know isn't allowed. Your job is to report those posts to the mods. If nothing happens, then come back here and flag it again.

That’s not a mistake. It’s a strategy. There are tons of posts in that thread saying things like "you'll never wash away what your ancestors did" or "everyone responsible should have been wiped out," all while discussing end-of-war killings. People are writing blatant stuff right there.

And nobody calls it out, especially not Sam Green73.

The guy is busy deleting and banning everyone on the other side. The bias is loud and clear.

If that's how it works—and anyone skimming the thread can see it—then why bother? Why not just admit openly that different opinions aren't welcome and that one side gets all the rights while the other gets none?
amberwalker4 amberwalker4 Active MemberOP
96 messages
joined Mar 2013
#12 ·
amberwalker4 said:That's it—it's unfair.Biased.

Typo - should say "biased." Fixed it.
Sean Cooper65 Sean Cooper65 Member
44 messages
joined Dec 2014
#13 ·
Sam Green73 said:
What’s the vibe here?
It feels like
  1. Us against Them
    Like,
  2. "Let's just go ahead and bash everyone who represents the other political party."


Who exactly am I agreeing with here?

The people justifying mass war crimes at the end of a conflict. You let them get away with anything, even cheering for massacres and claiming we can't wash away our ancestors' sins. Nobody calls them out or holds them accountable. But their opponents? They get attacked constantly.

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads