To a wanker whose ego overrides common sense and rational thinking, everything to be said by anyone is only an opinion if they disagree with it. Likewise, anything to be said by someone is a fact if they agree with it.
Type 1 flags are meant to be subjective, aka opinion based. Get over it.
Type 1 flags are meant to be subjective, aka opinion based. Get over it.
I like how you lecture me about rational thinking as you make broad generalizations int he same breath. Type 1 flags are meant to be "more subjective". More subjective does not mean totally subjective. Additionally the language Theymos used EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED the flag being used to object to people's opinions, making your subjectivity argument moot.
Is he explicitly calling for violence? I doubt it, because that is illegal and would most likely be addressed with moderator action. Therefore your comparison is not valid. You still are not addressing the impact upon the fidelity of the trust system that results from using it as a tool to punish people for their opinions just because you find it objectionable. This is more about the precedent that this flag is acceptable than roach. This is about protecting the system and preventing its continued abuse under the new metrics which is far more important than your little flag on this user because you object to his rhetoric.
People love using that term "dog whistles". It is a great way to defame people you don't agree with, because you aren't actually addressing what they said, but instead what you INTERPRET what they said to mean, which is of course impossible to argue against as it exists only in your mind. This is just another bullshit excuse to do a semantic dance to put lipstick on this pig and pretend this is not about punishing him for his objectionable opinions. The op has CLAIMED it is not about his opinions, but I have not seen any evidence presented OTHER than his opinions. You people think you are gaining something with this behavior, but you are making us all less free, and less able to enjoy these systems of protection here just to fulfill your compulsion to smite those that offend you.
Have you actually read his posts? Here is a sample.
You can tell how close the system is to collapsing by how desperate they are to try and grab the guns so they can try and force a new debt based currency scam on people when this one blows up. I really hope they continue this completely hopeless plan up until the very end. The kikes could just take all their stolen wealth and try to flee somewhere else and change their last names like they always do, but if they stay and don't try to run, they're as good as toast because everyone knows exactly who is behind it.
So, please Jews, I beg you, do not attempt to flee America. Stay in the US and continue your hopeless plan so you'll all be eradicated.
Seems like a rather explicit call for violence to me. The only reason he gets away with this statement is:
A) The financial system hasn't collapsed, yet. So this is only hypothetical.
B) The WO thread isn't moderated by staff.
C) Infrofront didn't delete this post. Probably because in this case, realr0ach isn't trolling a distinct individual. Unfortunately, all Infrofront has the power to do is delete posts. He can't issue bans.
Also, I don't believe that my interpretation of statements like this are somehow irrational, that somehow "only exist in my mind." What rational person would come up with a different conclusion?
Is that supposed to shock me into agreeing with you? I don't have to endorse what he says to object to this abuse of the trust system. Again, there is no explicit call to violence, if there was the staff would most definitely take action for liability reasons regardless where it is located. I never said your interpretations were irrational, just that they aren't his words, they are your interpreted meaning of them. People shouldn't be responsible for what other people interpret their words to mean, if that was the case all kinds of abuse could be justified, again because the interpretation exists only in your mind and can not be objectively observed.