r/CapitolConsequences • u/raw65 • Feb 08 '22

Exclusive: FBI probes pre-Capitol riot meeting of far-right groups Investigation

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-probes-pre-capitol-riot-meeting-far-right-groups-2022-02-08/
2.0k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/YoureNotMom Feb 08 '22

Link to anyone wondering what a bannable offense is.

https://reddit.com/r/CapitolConsequences/comments/s4wweq/missouri_woman_pleads_guilty_in_capitol_riot_days/hsxgwza

If only the supervisors of the capitol police were as diligent in doing their jobs as you, dear moderator, and equipped the capitol police with the numbers and tools necessary to punish people perceived of doing crimes, we'd have fewer terrorists on the streets (which was relevant for that thread cuz a terrorist was allowed to go home and then kill someone whole drunk driving).

Accusing me of blaming the police is incorrect, it's their bosses that set them up for failure. And I've been consistent about that.

5

u/graneflatsis ironically unironic Feb 08 '22

We agree now about their bosses but "salarymen"? Is that not a direct reference to the lower position folk? We are fair as many banned and then unbanned folk will attest to. If we made a mistake we'd own up to it. I don't think we have here. We may not be perfect, we take a ton of flack, but this sub is run to the best of our abilities.

3

u/YoureNotMom Feb 08 '22

To be completely honest, i didn't know that was a loaded term or dogwhistle exclusively for the lower positions. I thought it was just a derogatory term for a desk jockey pencil pusher that slacks off while collecting their bloated salary. Thus, it applied quite accurately to the higher-ups that set the police up for failure by inaction and lack of preparation.

1

u/graneflatsis ironically unironic Feb 08 '22

It might have swayed us and your ban had you responded with this at the time. We can only go by the words on the page and often err on the side of caution rather than nuance.

-3

u/YoureNotMom Feb 09 '22

You quoted the ban yourself, guy. It was 3 words: Whataboutism (which i interpreted to be racial cuz 90% of the time that term is used online, its about race and i made a racial whataboutist comment so it tracks) and incivility (i called dude stupid for accusing me of being a sov cit, and I stand by that).

Nothing in the ban directly pointed to my unintentional use of a loaded term as grounds for ban. So, I didn't argue it :p

I literally work in a company's appeals department in real life, and I know how to make a proper argument lol

2

u/graneflatsis ironically unironic Feb 09 '22

There were multiple problems. I was not the mod who banned you but I remember the exchange. Can I ask why you are so quick to denegrate us, bringing in racism, an inflamatory that I an not sure tracks with "whataboutism" at all? It was a temp ban and has obviously passed. It's bad enough to have to deal with Nazis but then we also get folk on our side laying into us. Again, you offered 0 response to the official ban appeal and instead are choosing to air this out in the main sub.

0

u/YoureNotMom Feb 09 '22

Bro, this has been a genuinely nice exchange, but don't pretend like arguing with mods is usually worth people's time.

When my ban explanation was 3 total words, yeah, I'm gonna assume these mods are typical "ban first, ban harder later" types. Arguing with a rando on the internet never ends well anyway (as evidenced by the ban that started this exchange). So whatever, I'll comply so I can maintain access to a topic I care about.

When my ban explanation is 3 total words, i have to read between the lines, and the reasonable conclusion i came to was that the whataboutism referenced was for pointing out how there was definitely preparation during the BLM protests that were met with riot shields but yet white racists get allowed inside. Cuz you can look and see that i said that. Saying something along the lines of "imagine how police would react if black people broke into the Capitol to interrupt Congressional activity" is textbook whataboutism. I did a whataboutism, and my ban explanation claimed whataboutism. It's not a big leap to assume the whataboutism that mod quoted me for was the racial one that I did.

If my ban explanation was "belittling the front-line police officers that fought terrorists and preserved democracy for another 4 years," then yeah, i would've argued that point. Cuz I was smearing the supervisors/political appointees that set them up for failure. But it wasn't, so I didnt.

So you can be indignant about me not trying to appeal a short ban, but you're goddamn right I was petty and spread the word that racial whataboutism is what got me banned when the explanation i was given was 3 total words.