Why was this post modded?

Why in the world was this post modded? Was it flagged by mistake as there is literally nothing wrong witg it.

We were debating about insurrection and I asked why killing the president wouldnt qualify if Jan 6 did. Thats warnable!!!??

Did someone who killed or try to kill the president run for office despite the 14th amendment? If not, your post seems like a clear hijack to me.

Killing the president isn’t insurrection, it’s assassination. I mean, words have meanings – if the president were killed, there’s a clear line of succession, the country moves forward, the democracy is intact.

I get the counterargument. But why was it modded. It was exactly what we were debating.

It can be part of an insurrection. Booth didn’t act alone that night. He killed Lincoln, Lewis Powell attacked and nearly killed Secretary of State Seward, and George Atzerodt was supposed to kill Vice-President Johnson, but got drunk and funked it. If the plot had been carried off as planned, the President pro tem of the Senate, Lafayette S. Foster (who?) would have suddenly become President of the United States, during the ending of the Civil War, which could have had unknown consequences.

I don’t want to get into Pit territory here, but, in my opinion, you sometimes bring in examples that are so out there that they derail the thread. You seem to jump immediately to an reductio ad absurdum or something. I’m not a mod, so I don’t know the reason, but maybe it’s that.

Of course, but that’s not what the post was asking. It was asking whether that assassination on its own is insurrection.

We’re getting close to arguing the actual issue here, and I don’t want to get in trouble for that.

It was a derailment of the thread. Indistinguishable from trolling.

So yes, a warning offense. Stop strawmaning and misdirecting threads to avoid further actions.

It was exactly what the thread was about: what is insurrection? I’m still at a loss to understand this. How did it derail the thread? Everyone else was discussing insurrection because Congress was threatened. I cant ask if that applies to the president? That is too far and warnable. What rule does it violate. Is everything the board disagrees with now trolling?

Kennedy being shot had nothing to do with the thread. That is the answer. Don’t keep doing this in GD.

If you don’t explore varying perspectives the thread will be very repetitive.

It did. Posters were stating that Jan 6 was an insurrection because it targeted Congress. I asked what about a president? I can’t fathom that it is a hijack of the thread. It was an attempt to come up with a meaningful definition of insurrection.

Almost every thread has a hijack under this new standard that seems to only apply to me. I have been here 15 years and have never seen such a thing moderated. I dont even know what the rule is.

I don’t understand it either. If you’re trying to define what “insurrection” means in the 14th amendment, yes, there’s the Civil War, but there was also Booth’s conspiracy to do a decapitation strike of Lincoln, Johnson and Seward, just a couple of years before the 14th was introduced and ratified, and mentioned as such in the wikipedia article. Couldn’t that be considered an insurrection by the drafters of the 14th Amendment (a failed one, but an attempt, nonetheless)?

Different from Kennedy’s assasination, since there’s no evidence of an attempt there to change the government, but exploring those two different assassinations seems to me to be relevant to considering what the drafters of the 14th may have had in mind.

Reminder, do not argue the subject of insurrection here in ATMB.

I am not shy about criticizing what I consider incorrect modding, and I’ve criticized one or two of yours in the past. But you’re usually right, and in this case, you’re right again.

I’ll just be quiet then. I’m trying to explain why I don’t understand the moderation.

I can’t question the moderation in the main page, because questions on moderation belong here.

But I can’t raise the issue of whether presidents being shot can be insurrection on the main page, because I don’t want to get modded like Ultra Vires.

But I can’t raise the insurrection issue here, to explain why I don’t understand the moderation.

I’m sorry, I’m just baffled. :worried: So I’ll be quiet.

You can, I’m sure, always start a GD thread on the specific topic.

I think this is a good mod call. It was so blatant.

What you posted above really has nothing to do with the moderation, so us not being allowed to discuss whether your points were valid or not has nothing to do with the arguments you have raised.

The point isn’t whether or not an assassination can be part of an insurrection. You’ll note that the subject of this thread did not post about cases where an assassin or groups of assassins targeted members of government to overthrow the government. Rather, the poster in question brought up the Kennedy Assassination, and not to argue that it was part of an insurrection, but simply to dismiss someone else’s argument about the January 6th insurrection with a total nonsequitor.

The warned poster was NOT making the claim that JFK’s assassin was an insurrectionist; he clearly believed that this claim would be an absurd one, because he was comparing the JFK assassination to an event that he denies qualifies as an insurrection.

That’s exactly why this was a hijack. The thread wasn’t about the nature of insurrections, and what does or does not qualify as one. It was about whether Section 3 of the 14th Amendment applies to the president, or only to members of congress.

In context, there WAS mention of the January 6th insurrection and how it applies to Trump, which is why discussion of whether that event was or was not an insurrection, and Trump’s relationship to that event, was allowed by the mods (including when UV insisted that Jan 6 does not qualify as an insurrection, which he was not warned for).

It was only when he pushed things even further off topic, to the subject of assassinations and insurrections in general, that he was (rightly) warned for his hijack.

It seems difficult to have a discussion about a law related to insurrections and whether it’s too far-reaching without discussing the limits of what could legally constitute an insurrection.

I agree, and I’m sure the mods would as well, in a thread about a law related to insurrections and whether it’s too far-reaching

…which that thread was clearly about