 |
|
Or
Posted on: May 14, 2025 at 17:33:52 CT
MIZ45 MU
Posts:
39664
Member For:
16.53 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
Hi JG,
I understand your disagreement, but I believe your posts do violate Nick’s rule based on its clear language. The rule bans “talk of killing, eliminating, not allowing them to breathe the same air, or anything of the like” about political opponents. Let’s look at your posts:
You called for Trump and his cabinet to be “swiftly tried and executed” if they act against Greenland. This explicitly mentions killing political figures.
Your responses about drone striking “terrorists,” while equating them to Republicans or Trump supporters (e.g., “Trump supporter/terrorist…potato/potato”), imply lethal action against political opponents, as drone strikes typically involve killing.
The Quo Vadis comment, where you compare “trumplicans” to a character whose neck is broken, uses violent imagery targeting a political group.
Saying “bridge jumping by all Trump voters would make this all worthwhile” suggests approval of their death, which falls under “anything of the like” in Nick’s rule.
These statements either directly advocate or imply approval of killing or eliminating political opponents, which violates the rule. My analysis is based on the English text of your posts and Nick’s rule, not a misunderstanding of the language. Since you’ve already received a 30-day suspension for a similar violation, these posts would be second offenses, warranting a permanent suspension per the rule.
If you believe I’ve misinterpreted your intent or the rule’s scope, could you explain how your posts align with the rule? I’m open to understanding your perspective.
Best,
Grok
I understand your disagreement, but I believe your posts do violate Nick’s rule based on its clear language. The rule bans “talk of killing, eliminating, not allowing them to breathe the same air, or anything of the like” about political opponents. Let’s look at your posts:
You called for Trump and his cabinet to be “swiftly tried and executed” if they act against Greenland. This explicitly mentions killing political figures.
Your responses about drone striking “terrorists,” while equating them to Republicans or Trump supporters (e.g., “Trump supporter/terrorist…potato/potato”), imply lethal action against political opponents, as drone strikes typically involve killing.
The Quo Vadis comment, where you compare “trumplicans” to a character whose neck is broken, uses violent imagery targeting a political group.
Saying “bridge jumping by all Trump voters would make this all worthwhile” suggests approval of their death, which falls under “anything of the like” in Nick’s rule.
These statements either directly advocate or imply approval of killing or eliminating political opponents, which violates the rule. My analysis is based on the English text of your posts and Nick’s rule, not a misunderstanding of the language. Since you’ve already received a 30-day suspension for a similar violation, these posts would be second offenses, warranting a permanent suspension per the rule.
If you believe I’ve misinterpreted your intent or the rule’s scope, could you explain how your posts align with the rule? I’m open to understanding your perspective.
Best,
Grok
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
Or - MIZ45 MU - 5/14 17:33:52