Deadly fatwahs; Are they acceptable at USPOL ?

[moon]

Larson;

What "cop-out"? For fuck's sake, I agree with you about the inappropriate nature of calls for murder. I guess you're so wrapped up in finding ways to be insulting that you don't even bother to read what I write

Don't get potty-mouthed, nor personal with me, Larson. There's nothing 'insulting' about identifying your response to an identified inadequacy in the rules as a 'cop out'. That's what it is.

I don't, however, see a need to place a rule censoring odious speech.

The contention is calls for violence, not 'odious speech', whatever you might mean by that. Nobody is looking for more ways for moderators to exert their subjective opinions. The request is for a, relatively, unambiguous rule on calls for assassination and murder. I'll throw in torture too, for the purposes of a heightened sense of human progression.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by moon

Larson;


Don't get potty-mouthed, nor personal with me, Larson.

More imparatives from moon. Boring.

Originally Posted by moon

There's nothing 'insulting' about identifying your response to an identified inadequacy in the rules as a 'cop out'. That's what it is.

No cop-out there at all. And I really don't care if you think there is.

Originally Posted by moon

The contention is calls for violence, not 'odious speech', whatever you might mean by that.

It's in the dictionary. Look it up.

Originally Posted by moon

Nobody is looking for more ways for moderators to exert their subjective opinions. The request is for a, relatively, unambiguous rule on calls for assassination and murder. I'll throw in torture too, for the purposes of a heightened sense of human progression.

Fine. Your suggestion is noted, and the staff will consider it.

Anything else? Otherwise, the thread has run it's course.

[Imperator]

Originally Posted by moon

A deadly fatwah is a call for assassination. It's just a foreign word. The question isn't affected by that; does USPOL policy allow calls for assassination or not ? Does it permit calls for the death of specific individuals or does it not ? If it does, must those calls only be directed at foreigners ? Can we call for the assassination of foreigners within America ?

Nobody is trying to corner Steve. It's a question of the law and site policy.

wtf didn’t you just say it like that’s instead of dribbling around for 2 pages jesus christ...

[moon]

Larson;

Anything else? Otherwise, the thread has run it's course.

There's plenty more to come, Larson, so try to contain your penchant for the stifling of debate.
You might note that this isn't a 'suggestion' for moderators to run off with and 'consider'. It's an open debate for members to air their views. And I've only just started to air my own.

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by moon

Larson;


There's plenty more to come, Larson, so try to contain your penchant for the stifling of debate.
You might note that this isn't a 'suggestion' for moderators to run off with and 'consider'. It's an open debate for members to air their views. And I've only just started to air my own.

You're not airing anything. You are whining. You are whining because the forum rules set up by the forum owner are not what you want, even though YOU will not suffer any consequences of those rules. I have to ask, do you behave this way when a guest at someone's house?

[moon]

What political forums should not be is private clubs dedicated to the promotion of hatred, racism or any form of xenophobia. In order to function so as to attract an intelligent membership, a membership capable of manifesting the positive results of exchanging ideas, political forums should observe the sort of etiquette found in the real political theatres which they emulate.
Otherwise we might as well all queue up to list who we want hit.

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by moon

What political forums should not be is private clubs dedicated to the promotion of hatred, racism or any form of xenophobia. In order to function so as to attract an intelligent membership, a membership capable of manifesting the positive results of exchanging ideas, political forums should observe the sort of etiquette found in the real political theatres which they emulate.
Otherwise we might as well all queue up to list who we want hit.

Then quit whining and start your own site. You are a guest here.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by moon

What political forums should not be is private clubs dedicated to the promotion of hatred, racism or any form of xenophobia. In order to function so as to attract an intelligent membership, a membership capable of manifesting the positive results of exchanging ideas, political forums should observe the sort of etiquette found in the real political theatres which they emulate.
Otherwise we might as well all queue up to list who we want hit.

The presence of the post you're complaining so vociferously about does not make this a "private clubs dedicated to the promotion of hatred, racism or any form of xenophobia".

You're just trying to censor a viewpoint you don't like.

We'll pass, thanks.

I may not agree with what the post in question said, but I will absolutely defend the poster's right to post it, your approval not withstanding.

Matt

[drgoodtrips]

Moon, are you asking for a specific policy change? You've made a very flamboyant show of how unfair the world is, but you haven't really asked for anything concrete. If you are really doing more than complaining for the love of complaining, what is it that you actually want?

[moon]

Larson;

I may not agree with what the post in question said, but I will absolutely defend the poster's right to post it,

Unless it's against the law, Larson, by your own admission. So, I say again, the rules as you interpret them don't appear to cover deadly fatwahs against those not specifically mentioned in them. This must be a strange phenomenon to members from other States, and an embarrassment to intelligent Americans who see other Americans calling for the deaths of foreign political leaders, or in fact anybody else not protected by the 'rule'. It's certainly embarrassing to me, as a USPOL member.

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by moon

Larson;


Unless it's against the law, Larson, by your own admission. So, I say again, the rules as you interpret them don't appear to cover deadly fatwahs against those not specifically mentioned in them. This must be a strange phenomenon to members from other States, and an embarrassment to intelligent Americans who see other Americans calling for the deaths of foreign political leaders, or in fact anybody else not protected by the 'rule'. It's certainly embarrassing to me, as a USPOL member.

Meh. I'm not embarassed by this site. I doubt many are. But, if you are, then start your own site so that YOU can avoid this fictional embarassment of which you speak.

[moon]

Dr.G;

Moon, are you asking for a specific policy change? You've made a very flamboyant show of how unfair the world is, but you haven't really asked for anything concrete. If you are really doing more than complaining for the love of complaining, what is it that you actually want?

Well, firstly I want a debate on it. That's the thread's raison d'etre. This is a debating forum, isn't it, or have I stumbled into android HQ ?

What's your own opinion ?

Si Modo;

this fictional embarassment of which you speak.

Ouch ! . Two 'r's, pleeeeeeease.

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by moon

Dr.G;


Well, firstly I want a debate on it. That's the thread's raison d'etre. This is a debating forum, isn't it, or have I stumbled into android HQ ?

Well, then in my capacity as a moderator, I've lost interest and in my capacity as a poster I was never interested.

What's your own opinion ?

I oppose any censorship. For expediency I cooperate with the law when it includes censorship but I don't like it. As such, I would never advocate additional censorship to "level the playing field". My personal opinion of bellicose calls for killing people is generally pretty low, but I oppose "decency laws" regarding speech whether they're coming from the Christian Right, the politically correct left, or anywhere in between.

[moon]

Well, thank you for an opinion. I won't attempt to alter it as you've already expressed disinterest. However, you haven't treated the question as taboo or attempted to belittle the poster, order the poster offsite or threatened to close the debate. Things are looking up.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by moon

Larson;


Unless it's against the law, Larson, by your own admission.

And there was nothing against the law in Steve's post.

Originally Posted by moon

So, I say again, the rules as you interpret them don't appear to cover deadly fatwahs against those not specifically mentioned in them.

Uh, no shit. I've said this several times now. Try reading.

Originally Posted by moon

This must be a strange phenomenon to members from other States, and an embarrassment to intelligent Americans who see other Americans calling for the deaths of foreign political leaders, or in fact anybody else not protected by the 'rule'. It's certainly embarrassing to me, as a USPOL member.

Well, many of us were quite embarrassed with the content being posted here when the Brett Golden / White Nationalist set was posting here.

But what you fail to grasp is that the forum is oriented toward allowing as much freedom of expression as possible. Which means that so long as the content of a post is not a violation of the law, the chances are very good that it will be permitted.

Censorship is a slippery slope, and I for one don't want to see us dancing upon it any more than is absolutely mandated.

Matt