This message was self-deleted by its author

[oneshooter]

This message was self-deleted by its author (oneshooter) on Thu Sep 6, 2012, 03:08 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Trunk Monkey]

1. Isn't that up to Krispos?

[Reasonable_Argument]

2. Don't think so

He'd be locking pro gun threads left and right.

[rrneck]

3. Dan wants to be a playa too much to make him one. nt

[MercutioATC]

4. Shouldn't a co-host be at least a little neutral?

Hell, we'd be as well served with bongbong.

[DanTex]

5. I nominate Hoyt.

I'm not interested in being host, and apparently there are other people who don't want that either.

The one-host system worked out fine until a little while ago. I think we should simply reinstate Hoyt, and then have krispos stop banning people unless there is a serious offense.

[oneshooter]

6. Are you afraid that YOU could not be as impartial as you claim to be?

[DanTex]

7. No, I just don't want the responsibility or time commitment.

[bongbong]

16. Sorry for seconding you

I did it before I read your post about not wanting the job....I thought to be nominated you had to have already agreed to be nominated via PM or something.

That being said, I could offer myself up for nomination ....

Just joking. If that happened, the gungeon's wretched inhabitants would flee.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. re: "If that happened, the gungeon's wretched inhabitants would flee."

Well I wouldn't exactly batten down in the bunker.

Maybe you should give it a shot. (No pun intended.)
Based on your performance as a host, perhaps you will impress those pro-gun among us.

[Reasonable_Argument]

19. I have a feeling

He'd ban half the users here on the first day.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. That would be rather...

...self-defeating wouldn't it? After all that seems like a good way to get yourself ousted as a host.
Being as that in itself would be disruptive, it may even get you subsequently banned.

[DanTex]

25. No worries. Thanks for your support.

I'd second your nomination. The pro-gunners might freak out, though. You should promise that you're not going to jump out of their computer and start taking their guns away.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. Yes ;)

That would help.

[Reasonable_Argument]

29. He can't even have a civil discussion now and you want to make him a mod? No thanks nt

[oneshooter]

38. Yet you were the first to jump and scream about

somebody who was willing to spend the time and handle the responsibility.

Seems kind of ironic that you would refuse to show us how much better you could do in the same place.

[DanTex]

43. I complained about an abuse of power and politically motivated banning.

The fact that I don't want to be host doesn't mean that it's OK for krispos to ban people frivolously. Up until the Hoyt incident, krispos was doing fine.

[beevul]

73. No. Just no.

You complained about a perceived abuse of power.


If any of us on the other side of this issue from you, talked to those on your side of the issue the way hoyt talks to US, as regularly as he does...


Well...it wouldn't go on for YEARS like it did with hoyt, and we wouldn't get simply blocked from this group, we'd be tombstoned.


And everyone here knows it.

Pro-gun posts get hidden quite regularly for far less...than hoyts daily "allowed to stand" schtick.

A little justice gets done - and yeah thats exactly what it was, was justice - and you guys on the other side of the issue get sore.

YOU guys didn't have to put up with mrbenchley for years, and thats precisely the direction that hoyts posters are heading.

I personally think it was long overdue, and I support hoyt being blocked 100 percent.

Personally, I'd like to see the jury system gone altogether and have some objective standards put in place, that would remove from our presence people who behave in ways that intentionally ride the line often crossing it, and rely on biased juries to allow it because of who the intended targets are.

In any case, the "abuse of power" is imaginary.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[DanTex]

79. I'm in favor of objective standards.

For example, no links to right-wing sources like Glenn Beck or the Washington Times.

Try to understand that if the only people who agree with something are all from one side, that makes it "one-sided". The most objective measure we have of disruptive behavior is juries, and by that standard very few of Hoyt's posts were hidden. I agree it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than krispos banning people that pro-gunners don't like, without any kind of balance or process or fairness.

There was nothing objective about banning Hoyt. Of course you agree with banning him: you are a pro-gunner. The truth is that Hoyt was banned because he reminded the group that the gun culture is rife with racism, extremism, and bloodlust. Pro-gunners would like to ignore that fact, and find it offensive when anyone points it out. But this is not FR, this is DU, and pointing out the truth about the right-wing gun culture is not grounds for banning. That's why Hoyt had very few hidden posts, and was not banned by MIRT or by admins, only by krispos.

When I posted about Hoyt in Meta, there were a total of zero non-pro-gun DUers that supported the move. Many people, including many people that never post in the gungeon, and at least two DU2 admins, expressed dismay.

[gejohnston]

81. gun culture being rife with racism etc.

That is a common Brady talking point, but totally full of shit. Can you show examples? I can show examples of anti ruralism. If you had the power, there is no doubt in my mind you would ban me or anyone else pointing that out.

Hoyt never pointed out any truth, he made baseless claims about people he doesn't like, just like you are doing now.

So, what if a story in Washington Times is relevant to the over all issue? For example, Miller's series about the DC registration process. There have been a few antis who claimed that the FBI UCR and ATF trace data "right wing sources with NRA points"

[DanTex]

83. Ted Nugent. What do I win?

If you seriously trust Tom DeLay's press secretary to write an accurate and non-misleading and non-right-wing series of articles in the Washington Times, then you're probably on the wrong website. It's "relevant" in the sense that it is written about the topic of gun policy, but in that case Paul Ryan's talking points about how Obama is gutting medicare would be "relevant" to the health care debate.

I'll say it again, if there's a legitimate point to be made, then you can find someone other than right-wing teabaggers making it. The stories that show up only in right-wing press are things like Obama spending $200 million a day on his trip to India.

[gejohnston]

85. Bloomburg and Giuliani

Don't get much classist and authoritarian than those two.

If you seriously trust Tom DeLay's press secretary to write an accurate and non-misleading and non-right-wing series of articles in the Washington Times, then you're probably on the wrong website. It's "relevant" in the sense that it is written about the topic of gun policy, but in that case Paul Ryan's talking points about how Obama is gutting medicare would be "relevant" to the health care debate.

Can you provide evidence that her article is misleading? Since neither of us have tried to register a gun in DC, you don't have the slightest idea. Are you saying Think Progress wouldn't or hasn't written misleading or inaccurate? Rather than bitching about the source, show were she was full of shit. Ryan is a red herring on this issue.

I'll say it again, if there's a legitimate point to be made, then you can find someone other than right-wing teabaggers making it.

When someone from Think Progress decides to go through the process to see what it is like, please be sure to mention it. So, if some writer at Think Progress says you can buy a machine gun at a gun show, should we instantly believe it and ignore the fact that you can't (and suddenly starts supporting Bush's "terror watch list&quot ? Could you dispute any of the facts in Miller's series? With the Think Progress piece, all I had to do is post a copy of the National Firearms Act. You didn't even try. Just because they are wrong on 99 things does not mean they are wrong on the 100th. For someone who claims to be open minded and bases their opinions on empirical data, you depend on a lot of stereotypes and logical fallacies. Of course, you would call me a right wing NRAbot for simply pointing out the poor research and writing.
So why haven't you chided secularmotion for providing using the right wing Daily Mail? Is it because it is Brit or because you agree with the content? Sounds kind of hypocritical to me.

[DanTex]

88. Also he's highly regarded figure and icon of the gun culture.

Can you provide evidence that her article is misleading? Since neither of us have tried to register a gun in DC, you don't have the slightest idea. Are you saying Think Progress wouldn't or hasn't written misleading or inaccurate? Rather than bitching about the source, show were she was full of shit. Ryan is a red herring on this issu

I've debunked plenty of right-wing propaganda here, but I shouldn't have to, because this is supposed to be a progressive message board. Paul Ryan is not a red herring. What you are doing with right-wing gun propaganda is equivalent to posting Paul Ryan articles in GD and then claiming that if Paul Ryan were really wrong, instead of complaining about the source, people should just debunk it. Wrong. This is not the venue for right-wing propaganda.

Do you ever wonder why you can't find any non-right-wing sources repeating the NRA talking points? Because it would be really odd if there were all these truths and cogent arguments about guns, but for some reason they only showed up in right-wing press. I can't think of any other topic that is anything like that.

[gejohnston]

90. He is?

I didn't know that. You must hang out with a different group of gunners, oh wait I bet you don't actually know any. He says stupid shit to get attention, like Hoyt, but does the cause more harm than good. I'm sure you can provide evidence in some gun blog that shows he is.

Actually you haven't debunked much of anything. Condescending rants and false accusations are not what I would call debunking let alone civil conversation.

[DanTex]

92. Umm... yes, he's on the board of the NRA, or didn't you notice?

Along with Grover Norquist and Larry Craig and John Bolton and so on. I love when you guys try to pretend that gun nuts are just friendly hobbyists! Are you really claiming that just because your own personal group of gun buddies isn't racist, then there's no racism in the gun culture? Really?

[gejohnston]

94. how do you get elected to the board on the NRA?

and I doubt the average voting member actually knows who Norquist, Craig, or Bolton is. Since I don't follow the lives of any of these people, I haven't heard of them saying anything racist. Craig is a self loathing gay person, Norquist is a money grubbing greed head, and Bolton is sexist, from what I read. But if you are going to paint 80 million people with the same broad brush, then perhaps I could make a similar argument.

http://www.stopillegalmayors.com/

Do you know what the fastest growing demographic among Texas CCW holders? African American women.

[DanTex]

95. And yet you have no problem calling gun controllers "classist" based on Bloomberg.

I'm sure you and your gun buddies aren't racist, but to try to deny that the gun culture is rife with racism is just silly. Ted Nugent isn't just some bureaucrat, he's a highly popular figure among right-wingers and gun nuts, who, by the way, tend to be the same people.

Do you know what the fastest growing demographic among Texas CCW holders? African American women.

[gejohnston]

97. I said there is a classiest element to it

how do you know they are in second place? How many Hispanics have them?

[DanTex]

99. And there is a racist and violent element to the gun culture.

You don't seem to have a problem with pro-gun people calling pro-control people bigots. In fact, you've probably done that yourself here a few times. But Hoyt points out that the gun culture is rife with racism, and suddenly he is a troll.

Double standard.

[gejohnston]

102. I provide examples

and the pro gunners responed to a bigoted remark by pointing it out, that is not the same thing as Hoyt saying it out of the blue.
Let's put it simple, back to the gas station example some months back.
Guy was trying to retreat while getting the shit beat out of him before he shot the attacker. To me it seems logical that he fired after he figured out he was not going to be able to escape. Hoyt simply called the shooter a racist, based on nothing. If the shooter were a violent racist, it doesn't seem logical that he would try to retreat. Of course, you ignored the part about retreating and simply called him a vigilante.

[beevul]

84. Objective standards.

"For example, no links to right-wing sources like Glenn Beck or the Washington Times."

In that context, objective standards means a source of information is judged on its factual content, rather than whos electrons its written on.

But thats not what I meant.

I meant objective standards of BEHAVIOR - rather than a jury system.

"Try to understand that if the only people who agree with something are all from one side, that makes it "one-sided".

Yes, I know, the debate over guns is mostly "one sided". Perhaps you should give that some thought.

"The most objective measure we have of disruptive behavior is juries, and by that standard very few of Hoyt's posts were hidden."

Thats like saying "the most seaworthy boat we have, is that one over there with 300 holes in it...".

There is nothing what so ever objective about the jury system.

And again, everyone here, including I suspect, you, knows it.

Certain posters come to this forum and do NOTHING except post in an effort to agitate others. Those posters stick out like sore thumb, and their intent is crystal clear to anyone who isn't completely biased.

Hoyt was one of those posters.

"I agree it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than krispos banning people that pro-gunners don't like, without any kind of balance or process or fairness."

Hoyt wasn't blocked because of his viewpoints. He was blocked for the way he expressed them. As in a completely and unapologetically uncivil manor.

"There was nothing objective about banning Hoyt."

Remember what skinner said about iverglas:

"Constantly surly and rude, iverglas had become pretty much the epitome of "making DU suck."

That sentence fits hoyt to a t. The only difference, is that he only pulls that shit ONLY in the guns forum, where juries that are biased, and/or dont give two shits, and let it stand.

His sort of behavior in ANY OTHER FORUM on DU would have gotten him PPR'd long ago. Think real long and hard about that and let it sink in.


"Of course you agree with banning him: you are a pro-gunner."

Him being blocked from this group makes me smile, yes it does.

However, I don't support his blocking because he was on the other side of the issue, I support it because he was "Constantly surly and rude", and "had become pretty much the epitome of "making the guns forum (a part of DU) suck."

I'm sure there were people that thought the same way about iverglas, as whatever youre going to say about hoyt in his defense.

"The truth is that Hoyt was banned because he reminded the group that the gun culture is rife with racism, extremism, and bloodlust."

You state that as if it was the truth. Its not. You know it. We know it.

"Pro-gunners would like to ignore that fact, and find it offensive when anyone points it out."

Except its not a fact.

"But this is not FR, this is DU, and pointing out the truth about the right-wing gun culture is not grounds for banning."

What you assert and perhaps perceive as the truth, and whats actually truth, are far different things.

"That's why Hoyt had very few hidden posts, and was not banned by MIRT or by admins, only by krispos."

No. Just no. Hoyt had as few posts hidden as he did, and was allowed to get away with murder so to speak, the way he did, because the jury system is just plain broken, and people from opposite sides of the gun issue are not held to the same standards of behavior by juries in any way shape size or form.

And everyone knows it.

"When I posted about Hoyt in Meta, there were a total of zero non-pro-gun DUers that supported the move. Many people, including many people that never post in the gungeon, and at least two DU2 admins, expressed dismay. "

You state this as if it proves something. It doesnt.

Hoyt made his bed, crossed the line after very carefully and deliberately riding it for a very long time, and now he gets to sleep in it.

Thats what youre complaining about.

Do you think he was banned because he was from your side of the issue? How does that square with the other poster that was blocked?

I can't help but notice, you haven't said so much as a word about that.

Why is that?

[DanTex]

86. You should seriously consider organizing your sentences in paragraphs.

The way you write makes it a real pain to read. So I'm just going to assume that the entire post is as inane as the first few lines, and not bother and read the rest.

I'll repeat, there was nothing objective about banning Hoyt. I get that you think he was being disruptive intentionally, but I don't and neither doesn't anyone else except for the NRA bots. I'm not sure how you think you are going to objectively prove that Hoyt was trolling, since that is a subjective judgement, but repeating over and over again how much you think he was a troll doesn't prove a thing.

Just because you disagree with Hoyt's opinions about the gun culture doesn't mean that he was trolling, or that he was wrong.

[gejohnston]

87. other than his boiler plate shtick,

what did he actually say? Did he ever try to back it up?

[DanTex]

89. You tell me. You're the one who think's he's a troll.

I'm sure he backed up some of what he said, but even if he didn't, who cares. Not backing up your posts doesn't equate to trolling. If people got banned for posting things that couldn't be backed up with facts, then there would be any more pro-gunners here at all.

[gejohnston]

91. Actually

I can think of quite a few pro gunners that would still be here. Hoyt made inflammatory remarks and said nothing relevant to the conversation. He never once backed up anything if you were "sure that he did" you could show an example.

[DanTex]

93. You only think his remarks are inflammatory because you disagree with them.

So Hoyt thinks that the gun culture is rife with racism, and you think that the gun control movement is classist and anti-rural. How is it that Hoyt is a troll and you are not? Someone could just as easily find your opinions inflammatory.

[gejohnston]

96. for the same reason you are not.

and you are basically say the same thing. first, that is not the only thing I say. He repeats the same sentences, even if it doesn't have anything to do with what else is going on. I don't say things just to piss people off, like saying it is OK to shoot kids in the back or accusing someone of being a racist because he defended their self. There are some advocates here who are genuinely base their opinions on experiences they had or the culture they grew up in.
Second, I actually try to think about what I am typing. I'm guessing you do too. Hoyt has had the same autotext responses that required not thought or effort.
Tell you what, go through a gun blog and see how many racist comments you can find. While you are at it, I'll look for comments by "gun control advocates" who bitch about rednecks, trailer trash, people who live in "shitstucky", inbred hillbillies, something that amounts to "all Texans are assholes" and we'll see who has the longer list.

[DanTex]

98. Still just a matter of differing opinions and styles.

Just because Hoyt doesn't write long posts doesn't make him a troll. I don't think he says things just to piss people off. On the other hand, there a bunch of different pro-gunners in this thread that seem to be posting for no other reason than to try and insult me and piss me off.

For example Missycim told me that I need to get help, implying that I am mentally ill. Out of nowhere -- in response to a post about gun violence in Europe. What is that if not trolling? Do you think Missycim is a troll?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117269711

[gejohnston]

100. If he didn't

say things just to piss people off, then I am concerned about him. Then that means he really thinks it is OK for cops to shoot fleeing kids in the back, as long as it is "those kind of people".

Having NRA on the brain? I thought you said you didn't think gun laws were that big of a factor. It was tacky, but not on the same level as calling me stupid/clueless or implying I grew up with a bunch of racists and lying about it. That is kind of how the golden rule enforces itself. A one time post is not trollish, a pattern of behavior is trollish.
What are these lists of NRA talking points? How did you get on the mailing list?

[DanTex]

101. Making excuses for trolls.

Obviously, Missycim was just trying to piss me off and insult me. What possible other reason is there to tell a person to "get help"? Please.

You keep talking about this shooting in the back thing. I have no idea what you are talking about. But I'm surprised that you are making excuses for Missycim's blatant personal attack against me. I'm not sure if Hoyt ever had such a blatant attack that clearly served no purpose other than to insult a fellow DUer.

[hack89]

8. No - this is a serious job for serious people

You are serious - you make the effort to explain your views and don't go straight to insults. You don't equate pro-gun democrats with racism, vigilantism or pro "lets kill people for the hell of it"ism. Unlike Hoyt.

[MicaelS]

13. Hoyt is completely, totally and utterly unacceptable.

As is anyone who, like Hoyt, equates gun owners with racists, and lusting to kill people.

Krispos has been doing fine. If he can't handle the load, he'll let us know.

And you're not acceptable as a Host either. Glad you don't want the job. If we must have another Host. I vote Starboard Tack or safeinohio.

Quit holding Hoyt up as some poor oppressed victim who did nothing wrong. Hoyt got exactly what he deserved and it was long, long overdue.

[gejohnston]

14. why?

Why Hoyt and not the other guy? I would think you would want Hoyt muzzled for same reason I wish the NRA would get rid of Wayne and tape Nugent's mouth shut. It is one thing to characterize a group as a bunch of irrational extremists, it is another when someone from that group harms their cause by providing the evidence themselves.

[gejohnston]

9. I nominate either

Starboard Tack or safeinohio.

[rDigital]

11. The Tack is principled. Can't say the same for the others. One host has been doing fine so far.

[rDigital]

10. Sorry, not interested. Krispos is doing fine. Ruffled feathers be damned. nt

[ileus]

64. Agreed....I second this vote.

[Trunk Monkey]

12. If we have to have a second host how about atypicalliberal? NT

[bongbong]

15. Seconded

DanTex is a very fair-minded poster with a great grasp of the facts surrounding guns.

[ileus]

17. Who hangs around this dump the most?

[gejohnston]

21. Why is Hoyt a martyr but

bupkus is lost to history?

[DanTex]

26. LOL. Justice for Hoyt!

[gejohnston]

28. where is the justice for bupkus?

he is your kind of troll as well.

[DanTex]

30. Hoyt was a long-time contributor. In fact, he was considered as a host

the first time around. Also, Hoyt didn't do anything wrong except for hold views that were unpopular among the NRA crowd. I don't remember much about bupkus, but banning Hoyt was way out of line.

[shadowrider]

32. My opinion differs n/t

[DanTex]

34. Of course. You are a pro-gunner, so you found Hoyt's views offensive.

But I don't think anyone should be banned by the host unless there is a consensus from people on both sides that the person was way out of line. With Hoyt, the only complaints came from pro-gunners.

[Clames]

59. Anybody who would consider themselves civil would find Hoyt's views offensive.

Very telling that you support his type of language. He was banned because he wasn't contributing by equating CCW holders and most gun owners as racists with nothing but his own convictions as proof. Get over it already.

[beevul]

76. Its not hoyts views that are offensive.

Its the way he deliberately rides the line expressing them.

"With Hoyt, the only complaints came from pro-gunners."

Show me an anti-gun poster that had other anti-gun posters complaining against them for their regular and consistent behavior.

It didn't even happen when mrbenchley was here.

So saying that "the only complaints came from pro-gunners" really isn't saying much, or establishing anything at all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. Perhaps you should...

...dialog more about this with krispos42.

[DanTex]

35. LOL. Hey, gejohnston brought it up!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. I was suggesting that...

...you PM krispos42 more about Hoyt's banning, if that is your only issue as far as a new host matters.

[gejohnston]

36. bullshit

his equating us with the Klan and saying it is OK to machine gun the children of people neither of us like is beyond the pale. If any of the pro gunners would say any such thing, you would be among the first to have them banned or TSed. You complain anyone who disagrees with you as being "trolls" yet you defend Hoyt and bongbong, who fit the dictionary definition of internet troll. Your dishonesty and hypocrisy always astounds me.

Edit to add: where were you and the other antis when Hoyt said it was OK for cops to shoot kids in the back with a sub machine gun?

[DanTex]

40. He didn't equate you to the Klan. Please.

By that standard, shadowrider is equating me to Hitler and Stalin and Pol Pot.

I happen to not think Hoyt or bongbong are trolls. In fact, some of bongbong's posts are quite funny. Instead of trying to reason with the NRA bots, he prefers to make short and witty posts.

The trolls are ones repeating right-wing talking points up until the point where either MIRT or the admins kick them off of DU.

What happened to Hoyt was a simple abuse of power. I'll repeat again that not a single person who is not a pro-gunner has agreed that his banning was legit, and several people in the Meta thread that have nothing to do with the gungeon expressed dismay. The pro-gunners like to pretend that there's no racism or bloodlust in the gun culture, that it's just friendly hobbyists enjoying a family activity and taking measured self-defense precautions. Hoyt would remind us all that this is simply not the truth. That's why he got banned.

[shadowrider]

42. I am equating no one to anyone.

Gun control resulted in the reigns of those individuals.

Prove me wrong, and I'll remove it.

[DanTex]

44. Hey gejohnston, did you read that?

shadowrider seems to think that gun control caused the holocaust. The last person who said that, I think, was Joe the Plumber. And you're calling Hoyt a troll?

[gejohnston]

46. At least he contributes to the discussion without trying to disrupt it.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, , or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Troll

[DanTex]

48. LOL. Saying that gun control caused the holocaust is "contributing to the discussion"?

[gejohnston]

53. does my sig line make me a troll?

because it is equally relevant to any discussion here.

[shadowrider]

75. Prove I said, "Gun control caused the holocaust" with a link. Otherwise please retract n/t

[shadowrider]

71. I never said that n/t

[gejohnston]

45. read the dictionary definition of internet troll

bongbong's posts are funny and witty only on a very simple mind.

Web definitions

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, , or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Troll

That describes Hoyt and bongbong. You define troll as anyone who does not meet my litmus test. Judging from his posts in other I have seen in other groups, that is the best either of them can do.

What happened to Hoyt was a simple abuse of power. I'll repeat again that not a single person who is not a pro-gunner has agreed that his banning was legit, and several people in the Meta thread that have nothing to do with the gungeon expressed dismay. The pro-gunners like to pretend that there's no racism or bloodlust in the gun culture, that it's just friendly hobbyists enjoying a family activity and taking measured self-defense precautions. Hoyt would remind us all that this is simply not the truth. That's why he got banned.

that is a crock of shit. I disagreed with his banning and said so.

The pro-gunners like to pretend that there's no racism or bloodlust in the gun culture, that it's just friendly hobbyists enjoying a family activity and taking measured self-defense precautions. Hoyt would remind us all that this is simply not the truth.

There are racists in any subculture, but the gun culture is not racist. The anti gunners are mostly classist in my experience. Speaking of racism, why did Hoyt always accuse someone getting the shit beaten out of him at a gas station of being a racist? That carries as much weight as Hoyt's rants. He falsely accused people of racism with no evidence. He used a negative stereotype to broad-brush smear a large group of people. What does that describe to you? You accuse the gun culture of being full of anti intellectual creationists and climate change deniers. Gross over generalization? You indirectly accused us of being racists and right wingers, and you have the balls to whine about being called a bigot in Meta? Give me a fucking break.

Bigotry is the state of mind or attitude of a bigot, defined by Merriam-Webster as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance".[1] Bigotry may be based on real or perceived characteristics, including age, disability, dissension from popular opinions, economic status, ethnicity, gender identity, language, nationality, personal habits, personal feelings, political alignment, race, region, culture, religious or spiritual belief, sex, species, or sexual orientation. Bigotry is sometimes developed into an ideology or world view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

[DanTex]

47. I disagree.

Hoyt and bongbong do not make off-topic posts, and as far as I can tell, they are not trying to provoke an emotional response, but rather trying to express their feelings. When dealing with morons who think that gun control caused the holocaust, wit and humor are very appropriate.

I disagreed with his banning and said so.

Yes, Hoyt's banning was so egregious that even some pro-gunners disagreed with it. It was a completely one-sided abuse of power.

As for the rest, look, trying to deny the racism in the gun culture is like trying to deny the racism in the GOP. That doesn't mean that all Republicans or gun nuts are racist, but the racism is there. I disagree with you that gun control advocates are classist: in fact, the biggest victims of gun violence are the urban poor, often minorities, and those tend to be the strongest gun control advocates as well. I'm reminded of the Daily Show feature about the "guns for tots" giveaway, where some Libertarian nutcase decided to give away free toy guns in Harlem, because gun violence is all a joke to him in his comfortable suburban home.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-may-12-2005/banned-aid

Still, even though I disagree with you that gun control advocates are classist and bigoted against rural people, if krispos decided to ban you from the gungeon for that, I would be on your side.

[oneshooter]

49. And I have given you a way to counter that "one-sided abuse of power."

And you turned it down.
That tells me that you would rather bitch and complain about a problem that YOU see rather than do something about it.
How about it cowboy, are you all hat and no cattle?

[DanTex]

51. Or krispos could just start acting like a fair and impartial host.

Whether I am interested in hosting has nothing to do with whether krispos was justified in banning Hoyt. I hope you can understand that.

[oneshooter]

56. If all you are willing to do is bitch and moan about it, then nothing will be done.

YOU are the one who complained, and now you want to do NOTHING to prevent it from happening again.

Typical of your ilk, all talk.

[Clames]

60. He has been. Your opinion establishes no fact to say otherwise.

Start a poll and see what happens.

[DanTex]

62. LOL. A gungeon poll.

As Hoyt pointed out, gungeon polls are like asking a Klan meeting how they feel about Obama. I'm still waiting for the first example of a non-gun-fanatic who thinks that Hoyt's banning was justified.

[gejohnston]

65. I don't think of myself as a fanatic

but you are the only one here ranting. If those in Meta read the whole thing first hand instead of taking your distortions at face value, perhaps they would have a different take. IIRC, Krispos offered Hoyt to return, but he declined. So, what about bupkus?

[shadowrider]

74. Hoyt never pointed that out. He said it was biased. I asked him repeatedly to explain

what he meant. I was met, as usual, with no explanation, only further accusations of bias.

I was genuinely confused on what he meant since the poll also appeared on the front page and was answered by people who have never posted in the gungeon.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

67. He has been and continues to be so

Hoyt went way over the top...he should have been PPR'ed for that and other posts.

[Reasonable_Argument]

50. What you consider humorous

Many of us consider to be a serious issue worthy of serious discussion.

[DanTex]

66. That makes it even more humorous.

[gejohnston]

52. they try to disrupt, and add nothing.

I'm not saying all of them are, but it is there. There is also a not of anti rural bigotry, not everyone, but it exists.

Every gun control advocate I personally met, was classest. All of them were as white bread as you can get. I know more gun owning POC, and that is quite a few, than gun control advocates.
I grew up where POC and whites own guns and hunt in about the same percentage. When I was in South Carolina, there were a lot of rural African Americans who were part of the gun culture. When I was in California, my boss and I went to gun shows in Vallejo. He was often pulled over for DWB.
Just based on my experience, I have a hard time buying it. I'm not saying all gun owners are not racist. Granted, it is a difference experience and culture from where Hoyt, I guess he is from Georgia, must have experienced. The apparent anti ruralism comes out when someone not understanding the cultural and political differences between the south and mountain west (including Arizona before being snow hating colonists) equate the two as being equally as racist. As a westerner, I find that very offensive. It was like the Illinois Nazis decided to move to Idaho, someone from Idaho became equated with Nazis. Or, life long Arizona residents who voted for Hispanic governors are not painted with the same broad brush as transplant from New Jersey Arpaio and former California resident Brewer.

I did not oppose his banning because it was an abuse of power, I opposed it because, quite frankly, he is your Ted Nugent. To the unthinking ideologue, they are speaking truth to power. To the thoughtful "anti/pro" or someone who is agnostic, they sound like raving lunatics.

Have something besides the Daily Show? I'm as much as a Jon Stewart fan as the next person, but I like more detail than a snippet from a comedy show. Was he trying to protest something or just being a jerk? Comparing him to us is like comparing his union bashing, supply side economics loving, Elizabeth Warren hating, 4A violating mayor as being typical of gun control advocate.

[DanTex]

54. The gejohnston fantasy world.

Or maybe it's a matter of opinion. In my opinion, the guy talking about how gun control caused the holocaust is adding nothing, and often, in cases of extreme stupidity, humor is the best response.

Anyway, just because you happen to meet all 23 non-racist NRA members doesn't mean that racism isn't pervasive in the gun culture. Sorry, but the reality is that the gun culture is just as right-wing as Hoyt makes it out to be. Some of the more honest pro-gunners on this board have even admitted it. It's not a coincidence that the NRA's keynote speakers are always people like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

If you look at data, as usual, you will find that I am right and you are wrong: that minorites and poor people are more likely to support gun control than wealthy white people, and that the divide between liberals and conservatives on gun control is bigger than the gap between urban and rural. I don't doubt your personal experience, but at some point it's time to grow up and face the facts.

[gejohnston]

55. so you are calling the vast majority of us racists

and I frankly think Hoyt made shit up. So why are all of the vocal gun control advocates wealthy? If anyone lives fantasy land and bubble, you are. None of those people are representative of gun owners or the gun culture. If that were true, the the same logic applies that Sylvester Stallone is representative of all Brady members.

BTW, you are the only one bitch about Hoyt as far as I can tell.

[DanTex]

57. OK, OK, that NRA thing was hyperbole.

I'm sure there are more than 23 NRA members who aren't racist.

Why are all vocal gun control advocates wealthy? I'm not sure they are, except for Bloomberg. It depends on what you mean by wealthy, but I doubt they are wealthier than advocates for other causes. Probably wealthier than average Americans, but so are most people that appear on TV or in the media.

Are they wealthier than pro-gun advocates? I doubt it. I'm pretty sure that Wayne LaPierre gets paid more than any gun control advocate. Ted Nugent is wealthy. Grover Norquist is wealthy. Etc.

[gejohnston]

58. Sylvester Stallone

Why does Brady have only 23K members? The NRA does not represent the vast majority of all gun owners. NRA membership only makes up five percent of people who admit to being gun owners.

I saw someplace where Helmke made 200K and LaPierre about 800K. LaPierre isn't the head guy, just the biggest mouth. When you compare membership with what these guys make...............
Funny thing is neither of them wanted any part of the Heller lawsuit. In spite of NRA fundraising propaganda claims, they not only did nothing, but they tried to screw over Heller's lawyers.

[Clames]

63. Dan Gross, the new Brady lead is certainly wealthy.

They probably needed his cash.

[shadowrider]

77. Prove I said "gun control caused the holocaust" with a link. Otherwise, please retract n/t

[shadowrider]

72. Can you show me, with a post and link, where I said gun control caused the holocaust?

You can't.

[spin]

22. In my opinion Krispos is doing a good job. Perhaps you should run a poll. (n/t)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. While a poll is a Democratic exercise...

...I would not favor one, at least not one to be used in deciding continuing service or replacement.
If anything run a poll asking if another host would be favored would be a good idea.


I don't like recall voting as it just undermines the initial voting that installed the incumbent.

[glacierbay]

61. After reading many of your posts

I think you would make a wonderful co host, you're fair, thoughtful, evenhanded, not rude at all, the perfect recipe for a co-host.

[spin]

68. Thanks for your support, however I have no desire to take on that job. ...

I don't wish to in anyway be insulting to the group, but I think that being a co-host here would be a lot like trying to herd cats.

I always try my best to be polite and I carefully consider and respect the views of those who disagree with mine. Good points can be made for both sides of a debate on strong gun control as opposed to gun rights.

I feel that it unfortunate that all too often insults are traded in the Gungeon. What starts off as a educational and rewarding back and forth on the subject all too frequently ends up degenerating into a verbal back alley brawl. The topic of this group has a strong emotional component and it is understandable that it can lead to a heated argument.

[gejohnston]

69. reminds me of something Will Rogers said

as for me, Meow

[glacierbay]

78. Can't says I blame you.

I still think you're a perfect fit for the job but I fully understand why you wouldn't want it.
Anyway, keep up the good posts, I enjoy reading them.

[DanTex]

80. As Hoyt pointed out, most regulars are pro-gun, so polls lean heavily in that direction.

I believe that, despite the pro-gun majority, there should be some say by pro-control people when it comes to things like banning people. That doesn't mean we need a second host. If krispos could simply avoid one-sided moves like banning Hoyt then everything would be OK.

I think krispos is doing a good job for the most part. Maybe we could have a second host for the sole purpose that, in order to ban people both hosts would have to agree. Other than that, krispos would effectively be the only host. Since I am not popular with the pro-gun crowd, the second host doesn't have to be me, but it should be someone from the pro-control side.

[spin]

82. Probably true. ...

Perhaps someone could run a poll for regular Gungeon posters to find how many were:

1) For existing gun control law with strong enforcement with possibly some small improvements.

2) For far stronger gun control laws such as another assault weapons ban.

3) For very strong gun control that would involve the banning the civilian ownership of certain firearms such as "assault weapons" or possibly handguns.

4) For the elimination of all firearm laws.

It's probably wisest that we allow the administrators and those who own DU to set the rules of the game as in the end it is their football.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. No way!

If he thinks Hoyt is some sort of martyr then he would be a ruinous host. There are two or three others who need to be bumped also.

[bongbong]

31. LOL

> There are two or three others who need to be bumped also.

I betcha I know who you're talking about!

[shadowrider]

39. Amazing no anti wants to jump at the job. Guess they'd rather defer

then complain about bias in the host.

Hoyt deserved what he got IMO. Had he made those same insults in any other group or forum he'd not only have his posts hidden, he'd be banned.

But it's the gungeon. They deserve it, and whatnot.

[holdencaufield]

41. Perhaps ...

... those who feel the need to only be among the like-minded can open up their own group? They could call it the Hoplophobia Forum and could feel free to express their opinions the live-long day without fear of rebuttal.

[aikoaiko]

70. Dan's too bitter now.

Maybe a year ago Damtex would have made a good cohost.

[oneshooter]

103. This thread has strayed far from it's origional intent. I am closing it.