The apolitical label.

[Danioover9000]

   Definition of apolitical:

Not interested or involved in politics, aka he took an apolitical stance.

   Definition of toxic:

1. poisonous, aka poisonous plants and toads.

2. Toxic substances.

3. very harmful or unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way.

3a. Toxic behavior.

   The question: Is it justified to label apolitical besides a username's profile, and make it visible to other users?

   The reason why I asked, is because I've checked a few users here, including @Yarco , who has this 'apolitical' label besides his name. This doesn't make sense to me, because when I've checked what he's written recently, he does have strong political takes, that are right leaning and are emotively worded a bit, which is part of his writing style in the general forum, and he does peddle a few conspiracy theories, but worded them in such a way that he suggests against those ideas rather than promoting those conspiracy theories. I don't understand the use of making it visible to user's and labelling them apolitical, it's contradictory to what that user has actually posted. Apolitical to me means you have a non-political take, on a political situation, that is other than political, or is non-binary and non-polarizing, that is outside of that political situation, or has takes that are weird and/or different than.

   I also, when looking through his posts that are visible, don't see how they are very harmful and unpleasant in a pervasive or insidious way. It's inaccurate to the definition point I've listed, so it must be some other reason than toxicity as the justification isn't enough.

   It makes more sense to me to label them 'toxic' rather than 'apolitical', if earlier there was a decision to make bans and warnings visible on the user's profile, like the color coding without going into specifics as to why they had warnings and bans and to just show they were warned. Then it makes sense in that context because there's already a precedent to make those labels visible, but instead the labelling felt out of place. To me and this is intuitively speculation, this is loosely comparable to when America was having a war against Germany and Japan, that they labelled and demonized the minor percentage of the American German/Japanese population given the situation at that time.

   I have no intention to throw shade on Leo Gura or any moderators who have made this decision, I just want clarity and understanding and a discourse as to why it is justified to make this label visible and why this is happening right now rather than 3 or 4 years ago, that's all.

   What are your thoughts about this situation? Please present them in at least a non-triggering way, thanks.

[Oeaohoo]

In this context, I think “apolitical” refers to the persons status on the forum rather than any political beliefs they may or may not have: a user is a “apolitical” because their political views are not allowed on this forum, not because they don’t have any.

8 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

To me and this is intuitively speculation, this is loosely comparable to when America was having a war against Germany and Japan, that they labelled and demonized the minor percentage of the American German/Japanese population given the situation at that time.

Exactly. We are in a culture war. The usual rules and mechanics of warfare naturally apply: you are either a friend or an enemy; in this case, you are either with the forces of “progress” or you are against them. The only thing which is unusual in our case is that the progressive liberal democratic regime is essentially a systemic denial of this war dynamic: a Faustian effort to transcend all distinctions and unite the whole world under one big Rainbow flag. Thus, enemies can no longer be recognised simply as enemies but have to be dismissed in a more dishonest and dare I say feminine manner: they are genuinely “toxic” negative influences seeking only to “gaslight” you, as opposed to people with a radically different perspective of the present situation.

If you aren’t on the side of progress, this probably isn’t the forum for you. Which reminds me… why am I here? 

[DrugsBunny]

It's ultimately a good idea to ban certain users from posting political drivel and to take the extra step of making their "apolitical" status visible for all to see.

This is supposedly a community for conscientiousness, introspection and self-improvement, so you're committing a blatant affront towards the pursuit of this objective by pompously broadcasting your own selfishness/ignorance and to be blunt, stupidity, by insisting that the FBI commited partisan treason by legally investigating humanity's greatest embarassment, Donald Trump, the bigoted manchild who: 

• Tried to steal the election while insisting it was being stolen
• Directed an unprecedented insurrection attack on the capitol when he lost
• Denied the seriousness of covid-19, framed as a liberal hoax
• Demanded states "slow the testing down" when it became obvious covid was real, sacrificing human lives to preserve the false perception of his preventative efficacy

This "FBI raid" was the issue of focus when Leo decided to adopt this much welcomed change, so let's not pretend it is unwarranted or that Leo is being unfair here. You'd have to be haplessly devoid of even the slightest modicum of introspection to believe Trump didn't have this coming, and I'm personally glad there will be accountability for the juvenile dullards subjecting the sane adults of this community to their deranged brain-rot.

[Tyler Robinson]

4 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

It's ultimately a good idea to ban certain users from posting political drivel and to take the extra step of making their "apolitical" status visible for all to see.

This is supposedly a community for conscientiousness, introspection and self-improvement, so you're committing a blatant affront towards the pursuit of this objective by pompously broadcasting your own selfishness/ignorance and to be blunt, stupidity, by insisting that the FBI commited partisan treason by legally investigating humanity's greatest embarassment, Donald Trump, the bigoted manchild who: 

• Tried to steal the election while insisting it was being stolen
• Directed an unprecedented insurrection attack on the capitol when he lost
• Denied the seriousness of covid-19, framed as a liberal hoax
• Demanded states "slow the testing down" when it became obvious covid was real, sacrificing human lives to preserve the false perception of his preventative efficacy

This "FBI raid" was the issue of focus when Leo decided to adopt this much welcomed change, so let's not pretend it is unwarranted or that Leo is being unfair here. You'd have to be haplessly devoid of even the slightest modicum of introspection to believe Trump didn't have this coming, and I'm personally glad there will be accountability for the juvenile dullards subjecting the sane adults of this community to their deranged brain-rot.

This was so eloquent. 

 

[Oeaohoo]

24 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

The only thing which is unusual in our case is that the progressive liberal democratic regime is essentially a systemic denial of this war dynamic: a Faustian effort to transcend all distinctions and unite the whole world under one big Rainbow flag. Thus, enemies can no longer be recognised simply as enemies but have to be dismissed in a more dishonest and dare I say feminine manner: they are genuinely “toxic” negative influences seeking only to “gaslight” you, as opposed to people with a radically different perspective of the present situation.

Given my inclination to pointlessly try to reinstall some degree of the historical sense into the screen-rotted brain of the cosmopolitan postmodern nomad, I would also like to point out that the phenomenon I described above becomes increasingly apparent as you approach the modern day.

The nature of war has degenerated over time in roughly the following way:

War as the pure symbol of a spiritual conflict: found in Zoroastrianism, pre-Abrahamic “paganism” and reaching its ultimate expression in the Bhagavad Gita.

War as a confused expression of spiritual and material conflict: the two Jihads, Christian Holy War.

War as a primarily material conflict: the mercantile feuds of post-Renaissance Europe and the related colonial wars. 

War as an inverted spiritual, or ideological, conflict: the wars between liberal democracy, fascism and communism.

It seems to me that we are now dealing with a fifth case which is more absurd than any of the others: war as anti-war. A war which can no longer even recognise itself as a war but only as the inevitable triumph of the forces of “progress” against any semblance of culture and tradition. If you are on the other side of this war it is not even that you are an enemy: you are insane and utterly irreconcilable with the victorious worldview and thus anything you say can only seem like “toxic gaslighting” to its defenders.

[DrugsBunny]

@Oeaohoo It would be wise and somewhat courteous to make some effort to conceal the fact that you frequently binge watch Jordan Peterson, but I'd imagine your habit for wearing antique monocles and sipping oolong tea with your pinky fully extended would naturally preclude you from affording others this modest courtesy.

I would ordinarily excuse the pedantic posturing here, but considering how little substance you've actually managed to convey in spite of this heaping onslaught of drivel I'm going to be blunt about how asinine this comes across. 

1 hour ago, Oeaohoo said:

We are in a culture war. The usual rules and mechanics of warfare naturally apply: you are either a friend or an enemy; in this case, you are either with the forces of “progress” or you are against them. The only thing which is unusual in our case is that the progressive liberal democratic regime is essentially a systemic denial of this war dynamic: a Faustian effort to transcend all distinctions and unite the whole world under one big Rainbow flag.

Having just looked up "Faust" so as to familiarize myself with this specific flavor of pretentious posturing, I can only laugh at the idea that one could, with a straight face, equate the pursuit for LGBT acceptance with selling ones soul to the devil. It must make you so angry that people no longer have to live in shame for expressing themselves openly as who they are. No one is forcing you to do anything, we just ask you not be openly bigoted.

56 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Given my inclination to pointlessly try to reinstall some degree of the historical sense into the screen-rotted brain of the cosmopolitan postmodern nomad, I would also like to point out that the phenomenon I described above becomes increasingly apparent as you approach the modern day.

I'm actually cracking up, my dude's straight up Jordan Peterson on steroids. Let's actually deconstruct what you've just said.

1. Cosmopolitan:
   • (of a person) One who is free from local or national bias/attachment
   • (of a culture) Containing people from many different countries
2. Post-modern:
   • An intellectual stance of skepticism towards epistemic certainty or the stability of meaning
   • That which follows modernity
3. Nomad:
   • A person who does not stay long in the same place
   • A wanderer

The implications of what you said are actually pretty revealing. You're essentially ascribing an implied faultiness towards the broad rejection of nationalism, from which I can only surmise that you are a proud nationalist yourself. Post-modernism has nothing to do with this, but you couldn't help but throw in the fancy buzz-word.

I hope I'm not being too abrasive here; after all, I can only imagine how difficult it must be to conjure a cogent worldview with the taste of Jordan Peterson's ejaculate ingrained into memory as thoroughly as it must be for someone who would post this.

[Loba]

I don't think people should be silenced for having differing opinions or beliefs or experiences, but that seems to be a common theme on this forum.  A lot of really nasty behaviour is gleaned right over, but if someone has a different way of viewing the world or a different set of opinions, they are often thrown under the bus - even if they aren't being particularely forceful about those beliefs.  I think it can be a problem to stifle people, especially if there is a crumb of truth from all sides, you inevitably get an echo chamber with everyone repeating the same sort of things to one another, and you ultimately do end up throwing the truth out of the window when you do this.  Silencing and suppressing people honestly doesn't work, but having a thought out well-meaning conversation where two people may not see eye to eye, but can at least find some area of mutual respect, this does work.

I see people with bad attitudes, spreading cynicism, abuse, manipulative personas, intellectual ego wars that are designed to go nowhere... - but as long as they speak with the same general nomenclature as everyone else, they fall under the radar - while someone who is relatively even tempered, but doesn't have the same political position as everyone else is ousted and marked with a permanent label by their username.

Honestly, I think a snarky, bad, haughty attitude is more of a collective problem then just someone who doesn't believe in the same things I do.  Someone with odd beliefs is just ultimately delusional and that can be relatively harmless as long as you don't get sucked into it, but someone with a holier-than-thou stick-up-their-butt chip-on-their-shoulder kind of an attitude that they foist onto others is always going to inevitably try and transform you with their worldview, or at the very least try to dominate your mental space with their crappy, opinionated nonsense. 

[Yog]

@DrugsBunny

Why not try to see what he is trying to say, using his ways and his understandings and why smuggle yours there, prior to understanding his?

What are you trying to do there?

[Raptorsin7]

Banning people from the politics section because they hold alternative political views lol. Very wise and conscious indeed.

[Oeaohoo]

32 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

It would be wise and somewhat courteous to make some effort to conceal the fact that you frequently binge watch Jordan Peterson, but I'd imagine your habit for wearing antique monocles and sipping oolong tea with your pinky fully extended would naturally preclude you from affording others this modest courtesy.

Like many others, almost five years ago I had a brief phase of listening to Mr. “It’s Not Obvious” himself but I quickly outgrew it. The mask of fame has eaten into his face and now he too has “sold his soul” to the likes of Shapiro… It seems he really is a Judeo-Christian after all! I suppose it is possible that a little of his influence remains in me but even when I listened to him I basically knew what he was: someone undeserving of the influence he would attain who has mostly only mastered the art of preaching profound-sounding banalities. I will grant you that Dr. Peterson is a genuine “pedantic posturer” if there ever was one.

Ultimately though, these are all just the the fake and flimsy pre-packaged oppositions that we are offered today: woke or libertarian; “cancel culture” or “free speech”; Justin Trudeau or Jordan Peterson... It all belongs to the same trash heap, no matter how hard anyone might try to convince themselves of the superiority of one over the other with silly models like Spiral Progress.

32 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

Having just looked up "Faust" so as to familiarize myself with this specific flavor of pretentious posturing, I can only laugh at the idea that one could, with a straight face, equate the pursuit for LGBT acceptance with selling ones soul to the devil.

Globalism is a Faustian project and the rainbow flag is the flag of globalism. In order to maintain a globalist order, it is necessary to destroy all organic bonds between people: of blood, of culture, of tradition, of family and yes, of gender and sex. The paradigm of the non-reproductive sexual union is therefore promoted by globalist ideology as part of the overarching procedure of uprooting and desacralising all of human existence.

I might add that this makes just as much sense from those who would analyse the postmodern world with the terms “neoliberalism” or “late capitalism”: the uprooted mass man (or, should I say, the cosmopolitan postmodern nomad!) is the perfect consumer. There is a deep emptiness in the soul of this man, a void left by the absence of God, of Dharma and really of all organic ties to anything other than his own mundane survival, his gratification and his right to proudly express a “self” which for the most part remains completely unknown to him. In truth, most of the time, he doesn’t even have any idea who he is or what he wants!

40 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

It must make you so angry that people no longer have to live in shame for expressing themselves openly as who they are. No one is forcing you to do anything, we just ask you not be openly bigoted.

I try to view things in terms of their ultimate significance: the rapid increase in deviant forms of sexuality is just one more “sign of the times”, as the Christians would say. That doesn’t mean that anyone engaging in these practices is evil and undeserving of compassion. It just means that we live in a very exhausted age; an age which seems to have as its principle purpose the exploration of those peculiar possibilities which would not have been permitted in most prior societies.

1 hour ago, DrugsBunny said:

The implications of what you said are actually pretty revealing. You're essentially ascribing an implied faultiness towards the broad rejection of nationalism, from which I can only surmise that you are a proud nationalist yourself. Post-modernism has nothing to do with this, but you couldn't help but throw in the fancy buzz-word.

Nationalism, like everything else, needs to be regarded within an overarching historical frameworks. Nation states in the modern sense emerged out of the rather brutal Hundred Years’ War and thus are more or less associated with the “age of expansion” and the degenerating societies of Christian Europe. Viewed in these terms, we can say that the emergence of nationalism was a negative indicator, shifting the political emphasis away from real ties between real people and towards lifeless abstraction and soulless bureaucracy. However, this tendency towards the abolition of all genuine and legitimate social bonds has in our time been taken much further by the ideologies of universal suffrage, socialism and their love child, globalism. It is thus appropriate to oppose all forms of globalising dissolution with the nation even if the nation is itself a decrepit institution from a higher point of view.

I specifically used the word postmodernism because I was jokingly complaining about the lack of historical sense that people generally have today. It seems that, where this isn’t just a result of the failures of education, it is motivated by the way that the postmodernist conceptualises themselves as being situated outside of history, almost as having escaped from history. Not only this, but postmodernism claims to deny all grand narratives and history itself is the ultimate grand narrative.

Regardless of all of this, the essence of what I had said was simply that, particularly when discussing things like politics, we have to face some basic realities of limited existence. Conflict is a game between friends and enemies, an “us” and a “them”. It is only natural that since this forum upholds a certain idea of what constitutes “us”, anything outside of that will not be tolerated.

[Danioover9000]

@Oeaohoo

4 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

In this context, I think “apolitical” refers to the persons status on the forum rather than any political beliefs they may or may not have: a user is a “apolitical” because their political views are not allowed on this forum, not because they don’t have any.

Exactly. We are in a culture war. The usual rules and mechanics of warfare naturally apply: you are either a friend or an enemy; in this case, you are either with the forces of “progress” or you are against them. The only thing which is unusual in our case is that the progressive liberal democratic regime is essentially a systemic denial of this war dynamic: a Faustian effort to transcend all distinctions and unite the whole world under one big Rainbow flag. Thus, enemies can no longer be recognised simply as enemies but have to be dismissed in a more dishonest and dare I say feminine manner: they are genuinely “toxic” negative influences seeking only to “gaslight” you, as opposed to people with a radically different perspective of the present situation.

If you aren’t on the side of progress, this probably isn’t the forum for you. Which reminds me… why am I here? 

   I see, the word 'apolitical' is being associated here by their statues in this forum, as having disagreeable political views in this sub forum? To me, it's still confusing because nothing in the definition of apolitical, 'not interested or involved in politics' reflects @Yarco's current predicament, and I see that meanings that make up 'toxic' and 'toxic' behavior are also being mixed into the label of apolitical, which just rubs me the wrong way, because he had politically charged takes that're right leaning and he just worded them in a hard R way, that felt nothing like a non-political take. Either come up with a better label, or color coding on the username, because it's kind of corrupting that word's original meaning a bit.

   I read that when a person is labelled as 'apolitical' the label is permanent on your username? Is this true, that this is permanent? That's cap as hell bro!

[Danioover9000]

@DrugsBunny

4 hours ago, DrugsBunny said:

It's ultimately a good idea to ban certain users from posting political drivel and to take the extra step of making their "apolitical" status visible for all to see.

This is supposedly a community for conscientiousness, introspection and self-improvement, so you're committing a blatant affront towards the pursuit of this objective by pompously broadcasting your own selfishness/ignorance and to be blunt, stupidity, by insisting that the FBI commited partisan treason by legally investigating humanity's greatest embarassment, Donald Trump, the bigoted manchild who: 

• Tried to steal the election while insisting it was being stolen
• Directed an unprecedented insurrection attack on the capitol when he lost
• Denied the seriousness of covid-19, framed as a liberal hoax
• Demanded states "slow the testing down" when it became obvious covid was real, sacrificing human lives to preserve the false perception of his preventative efficacy

This "FBI raid" was the issue of focus when Leo decided to adopt this much welcomed change, so let's not pretend it is unwarranted or that Leo is being unfair here. You'd have to be haplessly devoid of even the slightest modicum of introspection to believe Trump didn't have this coming, and I'm personally glad there will be accountability for the juvenile dullards subjecting the sane adults of this community to their deranged brain-rot.

   However, that doesn't explain why using the label apolitical is reasonable. By definition, the word is almost the reversal of what @Yarco posted, with his strong political take and strong language, it seems that you can't be apolitical with that type of emotional take. Also, I thought @Yarco was giving an example of treason as a hypothetical to justify, in his point of view, the situation with the FBI and Trump? But now the meaning is changed that he literally meant that the FBI was committing treason? I'm confused here, so you'll have to link those posts of his to show me where he did literally meant or metaphorically meant. I'm just saying, either case, his take is politically charged instead of it being apolitical, so it makes little sense to label him as apolitical to me.

   Another good example, of a person that's politically charged in their words, is what you just posted to me and another user here, using strong judgmental wording, that's far from being apolitical, and more closer to being politically partisan.

[DrugsBunny]

22 minutes ago, Yog said:

@DrugsBunny

Why not try to see what he is trying to say, using his ways and his understandings and why smuggle yours there, prior to understanding his?

What are you trying to do there?

The lack of self awareness here might actually deserve some kind of trophy. Why not afford me the same courtesy you're describing here regarding my perspective? The reason you won't is because you're politically opposed to my perspective, and your grievance here is not one concerned with open-mindedness as you would have us believe, but with defending your worldview, as I have done, and as @Oeaohoo has.

9 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Globalism is a Faustian project and the rainbow flag is the flag of globalism. In order to maintain a globalist order, it is necessary to destroy all organic bonds between people: of blood, of culture, of tradition, of family and yes, of gender and sex. The paradigm of the non-reproductive sexual union is therefore promoted by globalist ideology as part of the overarching procedure of uprooting and desacralising all of human existence.

You heard it here first, folks; gays are actually a conspiratorial manifestation from the (((globalist elites))), and the pride flag is the covert symbolism for desanctifying humanity. I'm not being dramatic, but your language is indistinguishable from that of Q-Anon, and "globalist", in the context you're using it, is nothing other than an anti-semitic dog whistle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Right-wing_usage

Looks like I'm supposed to report this, and I'll take pleasure in doing so.

31 minutes ago, Oeaohoo said:

Gays are now "deviants" apparently. Big yikes. 

Bro, @Yog are you really going to keep defending this guy? I could already tell he was bigoted nationalist, which is why I went so hard on him, but now that he's made it abundantly clear I'd hope you can admit you were mistaken to take issue with my approach.

59 minutes ago, Raptorsin7 said:

Banning people from the politics section because they hold alternative political views lol. Very wise and conscious indeed.

It's not a coincidence that all the people here opposed to Leo's decision have expressed disgusting views here themselves. I'm trying to imagine the world one must live in to equate homosexuality to murder and rape.

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/80666-insight-into-suffering/

Ban 'em all Leo. Let them pursue consciousness work with the many tools this forum provides, but don't allow them to further delude themselves into lunacy while subjecting the rest of us to their bigotry. 

[Danioover9000]

@Loba

1 hour ago, Loba said:

I don't think people should be silenced for having differing opinions or beliefs or experiences, but that seems to be a common theme on this forum.  A lot of really nasty behaviour is gleaned right over, but if someone has a different way of viewing the world or a different set of opinions, they are often thrown under the bus - even if they aren't being particularely forceful about those beliefs.  I think it can be a problem to stifle people, especially if there is a crumb of truth from all sides, you inevitably get an echo chamber with everyone repeating the same sort of things to one another, and you ultimately do end up throwing the truth out of the window when you do this.  Silencing and suppressing people honestly doesn't work, but having a thought out well-meaning conversation where two people may not see eye to eye, but can at least find some area of mutual respect, this does work.

I see people with bad attitudes, spreading cynicism, abuse, manipulative personas, intellectual ego wars that are designed to go nowhere... - but as long as they speak with the same general nomenclature as everyone else, they fall under the radar - while someone who is relatively even tempered, but doesn't have the same political position as everyone else is ousted and marked with a permanent label by their username.

Honestly, I think a snarky, bad, haughty attitude is more of a collective problem then just someone who doesn't believe in the same things I do.  Someone with odd beliefs is just ultimately delusional and that can be relatively harmless as long as you don't get sucked into it, but someone with a holier-than-thou stick-up-their-butt chip-on-their-shoulder kind of an attitude that they foist onto others is always going to inevitably try and transform you with their worldview, or at the very least try to dominate your mental space with their crappy, opinionated nonsense. 

   If it was me, I would be slightly more tolerant, provided that's it's a joke, or the are being subtle and polite about voicing their worldview and doing it in a non-political, non-binary and non-partisan way, depending on how they write their view on post. The situation with @Yarco doesn't match up with a person being apolitical, otherwise why did you just write such a strong, biased political take then???

   What do you think is a better way to address this? A different word, or some color coding on their name?

[Oeaohoo]

10 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

I see, the word 'apolitical' is being associated here by their statues in this forum, as having disagreeable political views in this sub forum?

Exactly, apolitical within the context of the forum.

10 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

To me, it's still confusing because nothing in the definition of apolitical, 'not interested or involved in politics'…

Well, he is “not involved” in the politics section of this forum anymore!

11 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

I read that when a person is labelled as 'apolitical' the label is permanent on your username? Is this true, that this is permanent? That's cap as hell bro!

All things must pass! Only God is permanent…

[Danioover9000]

   Guys, and maybe girls, can you please chill? I just want a stage yellow discussion going on here, you know, in a non triggering way please? Not to name names, but please can you tone yourself down? You might lock this thread accidentally. 

[DrugsBunny]

2 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@DrugsBunny

   However, that doesn't explain why using the label apolitical is reasonable. By definition, the word is almost the reversal of what @Yarco posted, with his strong political take and strong language, it seems that you can't be apolitical with that type of emotional take. Also, I thought @Yarco was giving an example of treason as a hypothetical to justify, in his point of view, the situation with the FBI and Trump? But now the meaning is changed that he literally meant that the FBI was committing treason? I'm confused here, so you'll have to link those posts of his to show me where he did literally meant or metaphorically meant. I'm just saying, either case, his take is politically charged instead of it being apolitical, so it makes little sense to label him as apolitical to me.

   Another good example, of a person that's politically charged in their words, is what you just posted to me and another user here, using strong judgmental wording, that's far from being apolitical, and more closer to being politically partisan.

Apolitical, in this context, obviously means "this user is NOT permitted to discuss politics" rendering them apolitical in the literal sense that within the domain of this forum they will not be engaged in politics. It's a semantics game to insist this is an unreasonable label. 

To be perfectly clear, I'm not even referring to @Yarco, because Leo didn't make this decision until another user @Fadl decided to indirectly call me a drug addict while asserting the conspiracy of partisan treason regarding the FBI raid.

You're probably about to say, "all he said was that the left doesn't want to deal with Trump next election", to which I'll respond: Do you really think that's all he meant by that specific language. Please don't be this intentionally naive.

[cetus]

19 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

Please don't be this intentionally naive.

Let's not have any of that. Keep it civil.

[Danioover9000]

@DrugsBunny

21 minutes ago, DrugsBunny said:

Apolitical, in this context, obviously means "this user is NOT permitted to discuss politics" rendering them apolitical in the literal sense that within the domain of this forum they will not be engaged in politics. It's a semantics game to insist this is an unreasonable label. 

To be perfectly clear, I'm not even referring to @Yarco, because Leo didn't make this decision until another user @Fadl decided to indirectly call me a drug addict while asserting the conspiracy of partisan treason regarding the FBI raid.

You're probably about to say, "all he said was that the left doesn't want to deal with Trump next election", to which I'll respond: Do you really think that's all he meant by that specific language. Please don't be this intentionally naive.

   What do you mean I'd probably say that? It's a low probability for me to say that.

   The higher probability, for me, is to make a statement or question, is to further seek more clarification, again, why use the word 'apolitical' instead of another word, or coding system, when the word is almost the reversed meaning of what @Yarco wrote?

   So being politically charged equates to apolitical? Why not Toxic instead of apolitical? @Fadl seems way worse than @Yarco, and fits the 2nd definition of toxic behavior. I'd definitely do something about that user, but is it justified to use 'apolitical' than 'toxic'? it's okay to show to other users you were banned and are 'apolitical', but not 'toxic', but also not show you were issued warnings?

    No disagreement with what happen to @Fadl, he seemed he was behaving in a toxic manner to you. I just don't know if you could call him apolitical, like I imagine a calm person being apolitical. 

 

Edited August 15, 2022 by Danioover9000

[DrugsBunny]

@cetus Sensitive.