I think there’s a fair amount of frustration with how little the mods are responding to threads in ATMB. Jonathan Chance and Tuba Diva made a couple of really bizarre claims in this thread, and no other mods weighed in on the matter. And no mod appears to be reading the misogyny thread which should have been shut down quite awhile ago given that it was highjacked in a grotesque way.
Not to mention, in this thread, the constant attempt to deflect from the original complaint by arguing that the other thread was also a “call to action.”
Even if we stipulate, for the sake of argument, that this is true, it wasn’t the reason given by the moderator in question for closing the thread. Continuing to simply pivot to the “call to action” argument is dishonest and fundamentally nonresponsive. This point was raised by hajario a while ago, with nothing but crickets in response.
As for TubaDiva’s argument about Kent State, I don’t know what the hell to make of that.
The only thing I can make of her Kent State allusion is to illustrate why the “call to action” prohibition is a terrible idea, by showing a case in which the national guard failed to heed the kind of advice suggested in the closed thread, and people died.
If that’s not what she’s going for, I have no idea what.
I thought she was saying, basically:
*Telling soldiers to shoot unarmed civilians isn’t an illegal order. Here’s an instance where it happened, and the soldiers weren’t prosecuted for it. That shows the order was legal. If given the same order today, soldiers should follow it, and telling them to disobey is against the rules of the SDMB. Closing the thread was justified. *
It’s possible I misinterpreted her, but that’s the impression I got.
Is that this board’s official policy? I don’t want to post on a message board that justifies murder like that.
There was no charge of evilness.
Just the observation that the policy of the staff was that shooting unarmed civilians was legal and that saying it was not and that soldiers should be encouraged to refuse to do so was forbidden speech.
Yeah in this climate that may not be evil. Maybe not vile. But still pretty bad. The breadth of the response to the statements should inform despite the fact that this board is not a democracy. The moderation loop’s passive assent to that expressed position does fall on the group as a whole.
I don’t mind the note but I didn’t remotely call anyone evil, nor did I say the staff “advocate” the shooting of unarmed civilians.
If we stipulate, correctly, that the thread was, in fact, a call to action of the sort not allowed here, then the closure is appropriate. The original explanation may not be entirely correct, but the end result is the same.
You greatly misinterpreted what I said.
That is not Not NOT what I said.
Statement made by multiple posters: *“It would be illegal for American military forces to fire on unarmed American civilians.” *
My statement: *The shootings at Kent State were an episode in our history where American military forces fired on unarmed American civilians. The shooters were not punished for what they did. (They were indicted but the charges were dismissed by a federal judge and nothing else ever happened.)
So the statement made is incorrect; American military forces HAVE fired on unarmed civilians and nothing was done about it."*
I then stated: *“So I guess it must be legal.” *
Because it did happen. And nothing was done about it.
In making this statement I did not espouse or support firing on civilians, not at Kent State, not now, not ever. I SIMPLY NOTED THAT IT HAD HAPPENED, CONTRARY TO THE CLAIMS OF OTHER PEOPLE POSTING.
To infer that I had any other motive besides making a statement of fact is likewise incorrect.
That’s all there was to it. And I am horrified that you, that anyone would take a statement of fact I made and blow it up into something 1) that I did not say and 2) that was really ugly, even evil.
Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
That’s not how law works.
CITE ONE PERSON WHO SAID SHOOTING DIDN’T HAPPEN. NOBODY MADE THAT CLAIM
There, I can shout too.
But “Nobody got punished, therefore it wasn’t illegal”? That’s just not true.
Why would you make a clearly counterfactual statement like that? Is it just circle-the-wagons season again?
I don’t have anything else to say about this. I explained my statement, which was factual and not meant as anything else but a statement as an example of a part of our American history.
It was not intended as anything else but that.
Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
I don’t have anything else to say about this. I explained my statement, which was factual and not meant as anything else but a statement as an example of a part of our American history.
It was not intended as anything else but that.
Jenny
your humble TubaDiva
Not the “it must be legal” part.
It can be legal for the military to shoot unarmed civilians, but I wouldn’t say it must be legal. Surely we can all agree on that point?
~Max
Did I? How so?
My interpretation of your words came down to two things:
- soldiers shooting unarmed citizens under orders is legal
- Therefore, closing the thread is justified.
You have confirmed that the first part is an accurate interpretation. Your exact words: “So I guess it must be legal.”
As for the second part, I didn’t know your motives for saying what you said. I made what seemed like a reasonable guess. If you didn’t say it as justification for closing the thread, then why say it at all?
Here is a lawyer who advocates refusing unlawful orders on his YouTube channel. He isn’t afraid of getting sewed by a whacko conservative. I think being a lawyer he knows what he’s talking about. Or maybe he is just not afraid to take a moral stance.
(Skip to 15:00)
All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
It’s still early here on the west coast, and I haven’t finished the morning coffee yet. But it’s looking to me like you’re calling Peter Morris’s summary of your position completely wrong, and then reiterating a position that completely aligns with his summary, at least where it pertains to the Kent State shootings. Is your only complaint his extrapolation of that to the present circumstances?
Regardless, you’re wrong: the lack of successful prosecution of Kent State national guardsmen in no way indicates that shooting on unarmed civilians is legal.
This legal principle–I’m having trouble finding the Latin for “if it isn’t successfully prosecuted, that means it’s legal”–is one of the weirdest and most ignorant things I’ve ever read on this board.
Last night I encourage Tuba to step back and reflect. Instead, she’s tripling down.
That’s really disappointing. Imagine if, instead, she’d thought about it, and said, “Huh, you’re right, I really didn’t reason that through very well”? Imagine if she’d said, “After thinking about it, I see how badly that came across, almost as badly as when someone compared moderation on this board to murdering Emmett Till, and I’m sorry for that”?
Instead, we get this.
Gross.
And since we are talking about accurate interpretations of other people’s words, let me say that I did no such thing, and I resent the accusation.
I made a speculation that your words were a justification for closing the thread. That speculation may have been mistaken. But I did not accuse you of doing something ugly or evil.