There’s a comment chain in one of the new stories from today that’s extremely disturbing and pro-violence but doesn’t fit any of the options to flag on Disqus. It’s not targeted harassment, it’s not directly threatening, it’s just very pro shooting people who cause you inconvenience. Should I flag it anyway, is there another way I should reach out to the mods besides posting here?
It’s this post here:
I just went to the dropdown next to the comment, then hit “Flag as inappropriate”. You’ll get a list of reasons. Select the one you think is most accurate.
The problem is that none of them are accurate and that doesn’t seem to go to the NAR moderators.
I honestly feel that is a mischaracterization of the comment. It wasn’t aimed at someone who inconvenienced another, it was a hypothetical discussion about someone who attempted assault with a deadly weapon (vicious dogs.) I am pro gun control, but I also don’t want to limit speech in this way. What real harm does the comment do? Why not just block and move on?
The driver in the scenario isn’t in danger and the actual story resolves the situation without killing anyone. Allowing people to fantasize about killing people is dangerous and radicalizes our society. NAR shouldn’t want that kind of thing on their site.
Blocking works for people who just suck. Baldomero is a jerk who is out to get people upset, I blocked him. Paul Tate is fetishizing killing people and that should be punished.
I’ve just had a read of the comments. I have to say, there’s nothing like a good bit of healthy debate.
…and that’s nothing like a good bit of healthy debate.
It looks like the initiating comment and several in the chain following it have now been deleted.
I agree with you up to a point, the driver was in danger. He just managed to get himself isolated in his car before the dogs got him, but he is still trapped in a confined space, unable to remove himself from the situation. That is the definition of danger.
The fact that he didn’t get hurt doesn’t mean the situation is any less dangerous.
The driver was definitely danger. As was pointed out, what if he hadn’t managed to get himself to relative safety inside his car? The dogs could have prevented him from reaching his car in the first place and/or could have attacked him before he managed to get in. False imprisonment from the home owner and setting attack dogs on him… I don’t possess a gun myself, but I can understand why someone in that situation who does have a gun would choose to shoot.
If the situation had been different then different things would have been acceptable options. But he did get in the truck and was able to call the cops. And the commenter preferred the option of shooting the guy to damaging the truck he drove in with.
I’m glad it got deleted but I wish we had gotten a mod answer to the best way to handle things like that.
If you see a comment like that, please flag as inappropriate if no other options fit. And, you can always message one of us on here to take a look.
Thank you for the answer. I will do so.
Sure thing! Glad to help. 
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.