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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

tl;dr - https://youtu.be/C6BYzLIqKB8#t=7s

  • archomrade [he/him]English
    -1•7 months ago

    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.

    Those two arguments are not in any way the same.

    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.

    Why do you keep doing that? Why can’t you engage with the words as they’re written in black and white?

    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.

      • archomrade [he/him]English
        1•7 months ago

        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.

        It’s not the content, it’s the admission that the behavior was intentionally provocative

        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”.

          • archomrade [he/him]English
            0•7 months ago

            Rule 3 says: “Engage in good-faith and with respect!” Rule 5 says: “This community aims to foster discussion.” Rule 4 says “no trolling.”

            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.

            I can’t help but think you’re trying very hard not to read what other people are writing to you.

            Yea, I’m familiar with the feeling. I’ll say it again because I don’t think it’s adequately sunk in yet:

            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.