|
Tilted Cat Head
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Could you possible rephrase or clarify this? I'm not exactly sure what you're saying.
|
Tully, groups should speak their minds and intentions. No one likes when someone gets voted into office and then does things that were not spoken about or are out of character for the platform.
The Westboro Church if they rise to some sort of viable political platform can and should continue to speak in the manner they have been. Why should they stop or change their tune unless they really have.
This also means that if Taliban or other group rise to some sort of political recognition, they too should have their same discourse. It should not be limited in the manner of that "it has no part."
The same should be for any Hamas organization that gains some sort of political traction here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
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 ----------
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 ----------
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?
|
Again, TFP is not a public space. That individual like another who was crazy and bent on some of the staff here was free to vocalize their hate and discontent in their own space that they paid for. TFP is as public as any privately held space is. We reserve the right to remove people as we see fit, with no reason or explanation required.
No Will, that's not what I meant and you know that. For 8 years the Bush bashers called for his head on a platter, some making the same violent overtures that have been bandied about since Obama has taken office.
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
|