Dispute with mod

calling someone a “Trump supporter” over and over again doesn’t it make it true either

Seems not.

It seems the word Fanatical is deemed to be uncivil.

you “reckon” wrong but I’m not surprised at this continued “attribution” of what I “might” or “might not” do - it’s extraordinary making up hypotheses as an excuse to criticise others - anyway I’m done- election is over and I made my points above if anyone cares to listen to them - that’s what the feedback thread is for

Why not give an answer?

Unless it was a 'gotcha' and now you have to deflect instead

We've seen it in this thread earlier, it just derails the conversation into endless back and forth bickering with everything else drowned out

There's a thread in the sports section about a "Famous Irish Sports Star" that has a similar rule.

Just had a look there. Not sure if search is working properly but this seems to be my only post in there:

...on page 99 of the thread. There's 50 posts posted over three days on that page. I'll let you guess how many are pro Trump. (If you guess on a scale of 1 to 50, you'll be wrong)

You still didn't answer the question.

That's like saying: using the word antisemite to characterise Hitler, what exactly does it add to your argument?

Trump was judged to be a rapist, that is a fact, whether it upsets a few posters or not. Banning a poster for stating a fact, whether it adds anything to their argument or not isn't the point. It's the principle that's important. The mods are banning posters for stating the truth.

If antagonism occurs during a debate that centres around a man with the amount of convictions that Trump has, including sexual abuse, then that's because of Donald Trump who's amassed his felonies. Nobody would mention it if is wasn't the case.

Banning people for stating facts is very dodgy ground, even if the conversation can get heated and, frankly, on a forum like CA/IMHO where blatant lies are spouted every day and let pass by mods, posters being sanctioned for being truthful and factual really is a through the looking glass type of scenario.

Re: blatant lies

I made the point earlier on the thread about statements of facts and claims being made on CA without evidence, without engaging with follow-up questions. Just dumped out there and left hanging.
Not opinions, but definite statements that X happened.

I know it is not up to mods to fact check, but when specific (likely to be controversial) claims of fact are made, they should be made with evidence. Or there should be an onus on posters to engage with replies to such statements.

But at the moment, well, may as well shut down the Conspiracy Theories forum as CA is encroaching on its turf.

ps On request, I can DM a mod with a specific example from CA as I don't think it's appropriate to be referring on this thread to specific posts\posters

You have no idea why I reported posts

You have no idea what posts I reported

You have no idea the mod action to the posts I reported

Ergo, your post and conclusion are based on a false premise - in other words, balderdash.

QED.