Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Yes, it would be removed because it would be no different than any trolling post.
This is not public airwaves. This is not public space. It is not the same.
This space is not a democratic space. This it not the equivalent.
|
Regardless, the way TFP is run is a reflection of how the staff, yourself included, understand the role of authority in a society or community. If violent discourse adds something important to the national conversation, by your own admission, why doesn't it add something of worth here? If I were to hypothetically include in a criticism of Glenn Beck a mention of how I want to strangle him... what's been added? Now, apply your answer to the same behavior on this forum. What if I threatened Ace (something that would never happen outside of a purely hypothetical exercise like this one, of course), by mentioning how I wanted to strangle him? Now apply the answer from the first question to the second. What's so different? Are you going to try and fall back on the "we don't allow trolling, but America does" thing?
While dissenting opinions are of paramount importance in a free society or community, threats of violence are not dissent.
---------- Post added at 10:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:48 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I'd say that if Will was to be truly fair, he would dig up the same kinds of threads/posts about Bush that were posted here. There were plenty of them.
|
I'm still happy to not only compare the Bush administration to the Nazis, but unlike the Tea Partiers I can explain in great detail why I think so, and I never compared them in scale. It's a persuasive argument, if memory serves, not a poster with a mustache so subtly drawn on Bush's face without any further explanation. I never, ever, ever included violent speech in discussing him or his ilk, though. Frustrated, disappointed, and even angry as I was, I had no wish to see Bush, Cheney, Rummy, or any of them harmed. At most, I wanted an investigation, trial, and sentencing. Even the most radical voices on TFP never included anything like that. If such statements were used, they would have been at least met with gentle rebuke.
---------- Post added at 11:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 AM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
in part because the gun-waving cross-hair-training thinking about mowing down your adversary language of the right has spilled into the space of continuous repetition---so it's not a matter of simple sentences taken in isolation, but rather of a dominant discourse in the american political landscape---for better or worse (to my mind, its entirely for the worse) that is repeated and repeated and so operates at the level of conditioning mechanism. not pavlovian style--something lighter, more in the range of cognitive parameter shaping when thinking about intermediate or experience-distant phenomena (an old poli-sci definition of politics is thinking about the experience-distant; conservo-rhetoric is at its more obviously narcissistic when you think about politics that way spreading questions of individual identity and gun pointing all over the world...)
|
So you're saying the rhetoric could be acting as some kind of light classical conditioning? I have to admit, I never really thought of it in that way before. Would you mind elaborating on this idea a bit?