Thought this thread has little humor in it. This made me cackle. Thanks!
You cry “Racist hate speech”. People disagree and feel it more prudent to err on the side of free speech, and you’re back in the Jim Crow south? YEESH!
Shot with what, military rifles or Super Soakers filled with pee? He continued that it was the same thing Marxists have historically done and would do again if given the chance.
Have your Marxist friends historically shot blanks at people or shot them full of live ammo? If the only reason we all “know” his statement was unambiguously referring to murder is because that is EXACTLY what your co-ideologists have done in USSR, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, et al, then it’s pretty clear he was referring to self-defense, which is not hate speech.
nm
Let’s clear this up then. Mods, is it kosher to preach the shooting of Marxists?
Bonus points if you give an opinion as to it being:
a) “hate speech”
b) “self-defence” (as hilariously outlined by Grotonian)
c) “OpalCat” (Never knew her, but I do like the meme)
How about ISIS? They’re a group. Can I advocate shooting them before they behead me, or is that a hilariously ludicrous mockery of self-defense?
That’s an astonishing misread of the Thurber piece. You’re claiming that it’s about ostracizing other people because of their speech, in story in which the character who is ostracized, never speaks. Thurber’s story has nothing to do with respecting speech: it’s about the dangers of gossip and mob justice. You’ve actually managed to extract a moral from this fable that more wrong than the one that’s actually written into it. Thurber, no doubt, would be thrilled.
of course not… you know well this only applies to certain groupes and among them is not the muslims.
“Nuh uh!” 
What I’m saying is that not even during the highest and drunkest times of “Red Scare” McCarthyism would the shooting of Communist party members be deemed as some sort of “preemptive self-defence.” The thought process to get to that result is simply humorous.
ETA: Eh, never mind - I should know better.
It doesn’t matter that he never speaks; hateful speech is attributed to him and he’s ostracized for it.
It doesn’t matter if Construct said nothing hateful about Muhammad; hateful speech is attributed to him and people are clamoring for him to be ostracized.
By that token I can call for all white people to be killed - after all, it’d be historic self defence :rolleyes:
Exactly!!! Now you’re finally getting it! See how nice and easy that works? Then other people are free to discuss it or ignore you, but no one has to call for your banning.
Black separatists don’t call for the deaths of whites, as far as I know, but they often advocate something tantamount to “ethnic cleansing” in the segregation of racial groups. Let 'em talk, you might learn something.
Couple of problems you’ve got there, chief among them that none of the things he’s accused are hateful speech. He’s accused of atheism, lack of patriotism, collusion with a foreign power, and sabotage. Those last two are straight up felonies. They’re things that are legitimately illegal. The moral of the fable is not that he was persecuted for doing something he should have been allowed to do, the moral is that he was persecuted for doing something he did not do at all. To the extent that the fable touches on free speech at all, it is in a fairly cynical way, given that it is the townfolk’s exercise of their own right to free speech that leads to an innocent gander being hounded from his home.
Are you planning to post such a thing?
Such a thing has already been done.
I did not claim it had not. The question was in regards to future actions and I was curious whether he was looking to discover the ramifications of his own future behavior.
I don’t understand. If it didn’t receive a note or a warning when Construct said it, why should Mr. Dibble be concerned if he were to say something similar?
Are you kidding? His question is obviously about YOUR future actions, not his, and about YOUR future actions regarding a post that you failed to moderate earlier. In the past.
And I am clearly not going to make pronouncements about specific actions I may take in the future.
And while I understand how the discussion moved to examining my particular response to a past action, I find it interesting that so many posters are concerned about my future actions when at least two other Mods have had the opportunity to address the posts under discussion, yet no one appears to care about their responses or lack.
I have already noted the specific text in the Registration agreement that provides enough clarity to actually identify board prohibited hate speech. Since my objection to Modding hate speech was based on its vague nature, (based on the widely disparate nature of posts reported as hate speech), my future Modding on the topic is clear to anyone genuinely interested in that subject.