I got banned by him once because I pointed out, in rather colorful language, that a personal attack isn’t an ad hominem if it’s not directly used to refute an argument.
The evils are the same. There’s no lesser evil. Dead is dead is dead is dead, you fucking shitwit. You absolute twatwaffle. You self righteous piece of subhuman filth.
You do realize how incredibly stupid that argument is, don’t you? Please tell me you realize what a fucking idiot you are for saying something like that. I want to believe liberals aren’t so fucking brain dead. It was just sarcasm, right?
That’s not an ad hominem. If I say your argument is wrong because you’re a piece of shit, that’s an ad hominem. If I point out that the kids in Gaza are dead either way, so your argument is stupid and you deserve what the republicans are gonna do to you, and that I’ll enjoy watching liberals get their comeuppance and that I hope it’s painful and prolonged, that’s not an ad hominem. Learn what words mean before you use them, dumbass.
I don't think it was the part about ad hominem that led to the ban.
It's actually been really interesting reading how people summarize the interactions they had with moderators, and then looking at what actually happened, to see the parts they left out of the summary, and the stuff they put in the summary that wasn't there.
The people who attract moderator attention sometimes also tend to argue in bad faith and engage in personal attacks. Who knew.
Ha. Your post seemed perfectly fine, and the heavy-handed censorship of your discussion about moderation is a perfect example of why some people don't have the right temperament for moderation.
Jordanlund bans are very different from FlyingSquid bans. I realize jordanlund was the one who temp banned the parent comment, but mostly I was defending FlyingSquid here, in general. The disparity between "wild personal attacks and wishing suffering on other users = short temp ban" and "question the moderators = permaban from multiple big communities" is exactly a perfect example.