Texas teen was abused with hot oil, broomsticks for refusing arranged marriage - Sensationalist Headlines

Only because they keep confusing them with muslims

It's more likely they don't like others who don't share the same race and also like to lump multiple groups together in order to suit their arguments.

I think all he really wanted was somebody to respect his perspective on issues he thought needed a larger spotlight, but over time ended up transforming into the sensationalist headlines final boss.

Tudd is now permabanned. No more fights about it.

If i had unpopular views and there was a group of posters who followed me around criticizing everything i post for being part of a hidden conspiracy between hezzy and the alt right/nazi/buzzword agenda you would definetly be able to compile out of context discord messages of me making fun of those people. We have less tudds than we do his polar opposites on the forums, but it means tudd takes all the heat for hise side and the overton window is shifted away from him. People post things that send a message about whatever views and values they have. I dont post threads too often buti tend to post SH threads about cybersecurity, copyright issues and microsoft shitting on people, my biases are obvious, i'm an anti-authoritarian with general socialist democratic views. It's just bizzare that you and so many forum members think your biases entitle you to not see other biases you disagree with.

We have right leaning members who often debate and happy to explain their views. Tudd has been mass dropping threads only about muslims/liberals, people point out the obvious agenda pushing and why the articles are stupid, then he says "I just think it's interesting " and leaves to shit another thread to do the same. The discord messages were the cherry on top. Like I said before, we had milkncooki doing the same agenda pushing and baiting with a massive left lean, someone outed he was baiting and was perma. It's not a new thing for the forums, just milkncooki ar least posted normally sometimes.

It's only supposed to be 12 hours but Newpunch doesn't have ban removal or reduction working yet. He'll be back.

12 hours seem a little low for someone who has pretty obvious evidence that they've been trolling for months, don't you think?

I stand corrected.

We have the thing every time people post a gun accident, shooting or murder case thread, there's an inevitable gun rights debate and the OP is almost always anti-gun because thats how that works, someone pro gun inherently will be biased against posting articles that paint what they perceive to be an imbalanced picture.These threads typically pop up in patterns of a lot at once, not because the posters are part of a grand conspiracy, but because the news sites they follow and happen to be biased towards will also post these kind of threads with increased frequency when a big shooting happens. A lot of the time the people that post those gun accidents threads don't follow up with further comments, it's not a big deal, a discussion happens and people move on unless you happen to be the current meme everyone is having a winge about, in which case people reply to the thread ranting about the OP and trying to goad the OP into a bannable response. You could probably make a better argument that this behavior is trolling than just tudd posting his threads.

There's rarely any pro-gun articles though, the pro gun users mostly stick around and debate for pages upon pages. Tudd runs away by page 2-3 to post another article pushing how muslims are evil or lol dumb libtards. Look at his threads, literally 90% of them have to do with muslims doing evil things or how liberals/millennials are stupid or act silly. Tudd sure as hell isn't here to inform, hes here to push his agenda or world view on others and or bait comments that call him out on it. He's been seen off fp saying how he enjoys shitposting and toeing the line. There's people who've been caught doing worse shit on purpose and have been perma.

I don't even see how hezzy entered into this discussion or why it's okay to call Tudds biases for what they are but not accuse him of having an agenda. What exactly is the context of https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/172/051f5178-f073-42c2-bcee-e48c42727556/image.png Incorrect. Tudd's polar opposites were the Sanius Squad who were banned for trolling, shitposting, and baiting years ago. Speaking personally, based on posts you have made in the past, I would never have guessed you were an anti-authoritarian or held general socialist democratic views. It's not really as obvious as you think it is, certainly not as obvious as Tudds. I don't really care about Tudds biases. In fact the one time I've been banned from a Tudd thread was because I told people to stop jumping on Tudd for posting articles after a mod ruled the discussion off topic. But the fact that he privately thinks everyone on FP is an idiot surely doesn't reflect very well on his intentions here?

Incorrect. Tudd's polar opposites were the Sanius Squad who were banned for trolling, shitposting, and baiting years ago. I'm surprised how many people seem to forget this.

Cool. I too won't be afraid to routinely, and with clear evidence, severely break forum rules for months on end since that is the kind of environment you guys will be establishing by doing so.

I examined the context myself, don't throw this baseless shit out there, implying the context excuses it, if you're not willing to do the same. I don't care that Tudd has an agenda, I care that he hides it so people who point to it get banned, for supposedly being off-topic when that's the only reason the thread got made in the first place. He doesn't even have to do the cherry-picking himself, just go to some alt-right cesspool like T_D or Breitbart (where at 2500 comments, this article ranks even higher than a couple on the "most popular" tab), find a more mainstream source that's reported on it, and hide under a guise of "how interesting" and "how funny" while posing questions that coincidentally support a very specific alt-right narrative

THIS USER HAS BEEN BANNED. Reason: "Posting in a Tudd thread."

tbh i typed that in the search and there does seem to be a larger context https://i.imgur.com/MPZyuBg.png

Well, yeah, that article had a shit headline that was a baseless claim that wasn't at all confirmed by the contents of the article. If you don't want people to complain about this sort of things, just pick better articles.

That's the Sanius Squad, MaxofS2D, Milkandcooki, Rumbler, Lord M, and I'm sure a few others who got perma'd because the mods took their history of baiting into account. No one requested this much 'evidence' of something that's blatantly obvious back then. No one banned discussion of these users from the forum or lock 4 threads over it, and I've certainly never seen "this is not a MaxofS2D thread" as a ban reason

The last year of posts contained zero normal unless you counted him gushing (probably liuteally) all over inflation pics in the deviantart thread.

Which discord is this?

the polidicks/SH one you can find it in the main FP's links

I don't see this as really making what he said any better at all

That looks like the worst Discord server to be in ever.

it is People were talking about his trolling and baiting, which that quote in itself seems to imply. To me it just seemed to be him jumping into a conversation about topics facepunchers get angry about.

He's been on this forum for a very long time and genuinely has his beliefs

If anything it just incriminated even more users as being racists fucks for throwing "chimpout" around. If it's an FP affiliated Discord I have no idea why people are getting away with that shit.

People earlier in the thread mentioned being Tudd protected by moderators, and hezzy is lead mod. I have no idea what the context of that comment is, thats the point. If he's responding to something like "you should see FP react to X controversial thing" i think it's a generally petty comment but that doesn't mean threads are made just to make people "chimp out", and i feel shitty just nitpicking people's chat comments from 6 months ago anyways and calling it petty. (before i posted this someone posted the context it's certainly a different message if he's just responding to someone using half their sentence, which wasn't what was implied by taking it out of context...) When i mentioned the overton window i intended that as a reference to the shifting window of political acceptability. There will be no witch hunt, however there are more "far left" posters on these forums than the sanius squad ever was, but they're not rampant shitposters who made terrible arguments 24/7 and lead dozen page arguments over the pettiest semantics laced with flaming and personal attacks and ~sarcasm one liners with these squigglys~ which is what actually got them banned. Sanius's opinions arent what got them banned, it was the shitposts but that doesnt mean nobody else has an agenda. The argument against tudd seems to be "he doesnt respond to me in his threads enough and posts too many threads i dont like". Speaking personally, based on posts you have made in the past, I would never have guessed you were an anti-authoritarian or held general socialist democratic views. It's not really as obvious as you think it is, certainly not as obvious as Tudds. I would guess you're way further "traditionally left" than i am, i vaguely recall disagreements we've had on some issues where i was on the "traditionally rightward" side of the topic. The "extreme rhetoric" of some of the far left is counterproductive and actively dangerous when paired with some of the also-"left" policies i agree with, and in some ways this can be a larger barrier than a diametricly opposed far right policy that has no danger of functioning alongside a more socialist government. You wouldn't supply a doctor with medicine if he tells stories about how he sometimes gives people the wrong one as an experiment. Overall, identity politics suck and this is why discussing individual ideas is better than using broad idea-detached labels like left and right or even authoritarian vs anti authoritarian but the point here is that it shouldn't matter I don't really care about Tudds biases. In fact the one time I've been banned from a Tudd thread was because I told people to stop jumping on Tudd for posting articles after a mod ruled the discussion off topic. In prior versions of Forum Discussion (before Hezzy banned questions about users, moderators, or policy) I explicitly said on multiple occassions that any basis to ban Tudd shouldn't be build solely on "He is just pushing an agenda". But the fact that he privately thinks everyone on FP is an idiot surely doesn't reflect very well on his intentions here? Most people think people they disagree on politics with are idiots, this is a cause of and an effect of polarized politics, if that were grounds for banning we probably wouldnt have had the dumb rating. I don't care if someone is venting on discord about sensationalist headlines months ago and it just looks like venting to me not "hello my name is tudd i am an unsarcastic troll and my purpose is to cause mischief". Biases are an agenda, everyone has one, most forum members just have better things to do than post threads to FP so they don't get a chance to show theirs off as... broadly as tudd. Anyways, If you don't really care about tudd threads we've already reached a point of common ground. There's a post on the first page complaining about "the threads tudd DOESNT post", that was more the type of post i was responding to.

Didn't MaxofS2D get banned explicitly for posting about feminism too much during a time when feminism was a sore subject around here? Because idk about you guys but seeing a solid block of "Muslim does bad thing!" threads from the same user in SH is going to get really old really fast, especially if people keep taking the bait and bumping them to the top.

No, he was banned for consistently threadshitting. He constantly went into relevant threads to post one liners like " whoops, looks like #gamergate and #notyourshield got exposed for what they really are..." and "misogony isnt neccisarrily hating women".