Yes.
Probably not. I think ECG might have just been being polite.
Wait, what?
Yeah, what indeed.
If their job is to extrapolate a reference to a mythological creature into a bannable offence then they are doing a bang up job.
But a member saying, maybe just a little murder to further a political cause is ok, and, yeah we’ll just ignore that.
Maybe I’m crazy, but that is a deeply troubled board that has lost all perspective and credibility.
What is that?
The targeted thread doesn’t advocate insurrection, but it does imagine it, which was an offense in England centuries ago.
Imagining violence against the North Korean regime is an offense … in North Korea. Imagining violence against the U.S. regime may be considered an offense against that regime. IIUC the Board’s main motive for suppressing criminal discussions is to avoid unwanted attention from law enforcement, but I think Twitter is full of such imaginings these days — I doubt if SDMB need be concerned over this.
But whatever we do, let’s not confuse legality with morality. The U.S. itself was bound by Article 25 of The Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague II), yet bombed towns in Germany and Japan during W.W. II. And if “terrorism” in its general form is always wrong, why do we support terrorists in the Middle East? And why did the U.S. indulge in extreme terrorism against the people and rightly-elected popular government of Nicaragua?
If we resort to parroting a mindless syllogism — “That fits a pro-U.S. definition of terrorism; therefore it is wrong” — then America’s real enemies win.
"one man’s terrorist may be another man’s freedom fighter so no one is innocent in the end result " and i forget where i heard that from …
Yes, we have mods on board. Sometimes we get busy, and we are dealing with the same server issues that you folks are.
I did get a chance to read through the thread. Darren Garrison has a few instances of attacking the poster instead of the post. Darren gets a freebie this time because I couldn’t get to it in a timely manner. As for the stuff you quoted, it’s not actionable. It’s not actually a call to action and as stated is not promoting illegal activities, only explaining that they are in favor of illegal activities. That’s pretty much right up to the line of what’s allowed here, but it’s not over the line.
You are not required to like the post or the OP. If the OP’s statements bother you, you are free to give your opinion to counter them, as long as you obey the forum rules. If the OP bothers you to the point that you can’t obey the forum rules, you know where the Pit is.
And finally, just because we allow the posts to exist does NOT mean that the staff supports the OP’s views.
Again, apologies for not getting to some post reports in a timely manner.
I have been swamped at work, and at the same time at home I have had to deal with a sick cat (ended up having to put her down), a sick dog ($1000 later she’s doing fine), a plumbing emergency in a rental property I own, car problems (50 year old cars tend to break on occasion), Mrs. Geek accidentally destroying our lawn mower, and other stuff. And, as I said, we have to deal with server errors and timeouts just like everyone else. Sometimes, stuff happens.
Thanks for responding. I’m so sorry about your cat. I hope Darren enjoys the freebies.
Those specific arguments were silliness, and those specific arguments did oppose vandalism, so in the most technical sense, you’re correct.
I might argue against using murdering people with arsenic because arsenic, containing no carbon atoms, is not organic, and we should only feed people organic stuff because that’s healthier. That’d be an argument opposing murder by arsenic.
If you called that argument “silliness,” that wouldn’t mean you were “willing to have other people murdered by arsenic,” and if I challenged you by saying, “Okay, why don’t you let YOURSELF get murdered by arsenic?” and insisted you lacked the courage of your convictions if you didn’t ingest arsenic yourself, I’d be behaving much as you’re behaving regarding the anti-vandalism arguments put forth in that thread.
I don’t believe Commeatus advocates murder as acceptable form of protest. It takes a stilted reading to take his sentence to mean that. Yes, he says that he is using the broad word “violence” to mean everything from murder to not speaking up. It is clear he is contrasting the cops murdering black people with protest methods that include property damage. Elsewhere he is explicit about that.
There’s plenty to legitimately question without stretching his words beyond his meaning.