North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Talk about "libelous".
I could be misremembering, by wasn't the falsified PM by Wry[something]? I hope he got banned for a significant period of time as that was just terrible. Like honestly why would someone do that?
I could be misremembering, by wasn't the falsified PM by Wry[something]? I hope he got banned for a significant period of time as that was just terrible. Like honestly why would someone do that?
I have heard from my peer that one of us was banned for 1 week for, and I quote what is apparently the actual word used by one of the moderator, "spreading the revolt" into OT.
I would very much like to believe that the moderator of this site is reasonable authority and have not used those actual words, with it being a fabrication. This is an extremely poor choice of words on the part of the moderation. Even if NESers used it first, there is still a big difference between calling for the upheaval of government by violent or protests and expressing discontent against volunteer site moderation of a forum by breaking forum rules.
Ergo, the repetition of the r-word here greatly disturbs me and validates my peer's statements. One moderator can make mistakes, but two? That concerns me.
If the moderation could do all in its power to tone back their language by avoiding hostile or militaristic language, it would go a long way to avoid creating further grievances: we have enough. Do not give ammunition to the people.
I doubt, however, it will resolve the current issue.
Let me restate this in a more coherent way:
The community launched itself in fervent aggression against someone who justified taking violent action against innocent human beings.
Those who were most aggressive in opposing this advocacy of violence were punished. Those who raised their voices in outrage that those opposing advocacy of violence had been punished, were themselves punished and admonished. Those who attempted to raise further awareness of the problem were punished.
Those who sought to encourage discussion of the problem, even in this thread, were censored and punished because of an arbitrary PDMA rule that hurts more than it helps. Let us reform that rule now.
At no point has a moderator stepped forward to APOLOGIZE for this colossal mismanagement of what was, fundamentally, a natural human impulse to protect one's community from hateful actors.
I personally have been a victim of terrorism. My father's office in the North Tower was immolated on 9/11 when I was 11 years old, and for several hours, I did not know if he was alive or dead. Frankly, I think of anyone advocating violence in America under any ideological guise to be abhorrent, and I told Amon that his views were naive and stupid because I know what violence directed at the helpless with any justification looks like.
Frankly, if the moderators cannot simply apologize for failing to be sensitive to the natural human fear of violence in one's own society, I fear that they have fallen into a culture of self-protection. I do not want to believe that of the moderators, who are an intelligent group of individuals with the community's best interests at heart.
If they DO have our community's best interests at heart, I would like to see moderators come forward and apologize for their statements and actions. We would all like to see that. By all means, prove that the charges of arrogance leveled against the moderation staff are not correct. Act with dignity and the community will respond.
Plotinus said:The view of the moderators - and these posts were discussed at the time - was that he didn't, really, do that. Yes, we've all seen the reports and the other commentaries arguing that he's a "terrorist", and we all disagreed.
FBI said:The FBI considers sovereign-citizen extremists as comprising a domestic terrorist movement, which, scattered across the United States, has existed for decades, with well-known members, such as Terry Nichols, who helped plan the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, bombing. Sovereign citizens do not represent an anarchist group, nor are they a militia, although they sometimes use or buy illegal weapons. Rather, they operate as individuals without established leadership and only come together in loosely affiliated groups to train, help each other with paperwork, or socialize and talk about their ideology. They may refer to themselves as “constitutionalists” or “freemen,” which is not necessarily a connection to a specific group, but, rather, an indication that they are free from government control. They follow their own set of laws. While the philosophies and conspiracy theories can vary from person to person, their core beliefs are the same: The government operates outside of its jurisdiction. Because of this belief, they do not recognize federal, state, or local laws, policies, or regulations.
Normal people don't get goaded into making terrorism threats.Plotinus said:We felt, moreover, that those attacking him were deliberately goading him to say things that were worse.
So it's not correct to say, as some have done, that people got infracted simply for "calling out" what they perceived to be dangerous views.