NationStates Jolt Archive

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524627

Look, I know we all believe in political freedom of speech. But this is just advocating genocidal murder.

Replace the context of Iraq vs Insurgents with that of Palestinians vs Israel, and replace "kill Sunnis" with "kill Jews" and see how reasonable a thread it'd be.

Considering the crazy threads MTAE posted this doesn't seem to be any worse.

You mean those ones he did which were also trolling and which got closed down?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524627

Look, I know we all believe in political freedom of speech. But this is just advocating genocidal murder.

Replace the context of Iraq vs Insurgents with that of Palestinians vs Israel, and replace "kill Sunnis" with "kill Jews" and see how reasonable a thread it'd be.

Reasonableness isn't required in forum threads, in case you missed that fact over the past four years.

Also, try to put a battle between Reformed and Orthodox Jews into your analogy, and then put in an occupying force that wants to get the two to settle down.

I read the post thoroughly, and it doesn't seem actionable based on the charge that it advocates genocidal murder, because it doesn't. Unless there's some other rules violation in it that I'm missing, it stays.

It isn't advocating genocide in the sense of completely wiping out a genetic group. it is advocating genocide in the sense of mass murder. It doesn't make any more sense to allow it than to alllow advocating collective punishment executions of black people every time a black person commits a hate crime. IMHO. Maybe I'm just not seeing the crucial difference.

It isn't advocating genocide in the sense of completely wiping out a genetic group. it is advocating genocide in the sense of mass murder. It doesn't make any more sense to allow it than to alllow advocating collective punishment executions of black people every time a black person commits a hate crime. IMHO. Maybe I'm just not seeing the crucial difference.

I'm actually pretty sure you can get away with advocating rounding up and killing black people. Remember Fourth Holy Reich?

In fact, if somebody flames someone advocating genociding black people, it's the flamer who gets warned.

It isn't advocating genocide in the sense of completely wiping out a genetic group.

Well obviously. Religious groups were cited, not genetic ones. I'm open to the possibility of someone advocating genocide of a religious group or even a non-religious non-group like atheists. It matters little to me as a Moderator whether the poster is saying, "Kill all the Jews" or "Kill all the Buddhists" or "Kill all the Blacks" or "Kill all the Down's Syndrome kids". They all violate the rules for the same reason.

it is advocating genocide in the sense of mass murder. It doesn't make any more sense to allow it than to alllow advocating collective punishment executions of black people every time a black person commits a hate crime. IMHO.

And here's where I think you're missing the context. Yet again. Think about the situation. Making a case for the mass murder of a group or groups is part and parcel of making a case for war and other large military operations like, oh, say, an occupation of a country whose government your nation toppled and now has to deal with a partly religiously-motivated insurgency.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to make a ruling that essentially invalidates any post trying to put forth a pro-war or pro-military action viewpoint.

Maybe I'm just not seeing the crucial difference.

I think you're onto something there.

I'm actually pretty sure you can get away with advocating rounding up and killing black people. Remember Fourth Holy Reich?

In fact, if somebody flames someone advocating genociding black people, it's the flamer who gets warned.

I remember temp-banning TFHR myself, and then him getting deleted later. Somehow, I wouldn't call that getting away with it. Certainly, I doubt TFHR thought he got away with it.

And of course you can get warned for flaming even when the other poster bothered you first. That's been the policy for a very, very long time.

Well obviously. Religious groups were cited, not genetic ones. As far as my knowledge of Islamic culture goes, one does not generally convert from being a Sunni into being a Shia. One is born into a Sunni or Shia family. These are in the very least defacto genetic groups.I'm sorry, but I'm not going to make a ruling that essentially invalidates any post trying to put forth a pro-war or pro-military action viewpoint.
So it's fine do advocate mass murder as long it is of a politically correct sort? Not that I mind :rolleyes:

So it's fine do advocate mass murder as long it is of a politically correct sort? Not that I mind :rolleyes:
You're deliberately missing the point, aren't you? Good illustration of logic vs. reason :D


Not that we should be having a debate in Moderation, or anything *goes back to lurking*

I remember temp-banning TFHR myself, and then him getting deleted later. Somehow, I wouldn't call that getting away with it. Certainly, I doubt TFHR thought he got away with it.


Was that why he was banned? I always figured he ended up the same way as MTAE...

Who I think was banned for flaming and trolling.

Well obviously. Religious groups were cited, not genetic ones. I'm open to the possibility of someone advocating genocide of a religious group or even a non-religious non-group like atheists. It matters little to me as a Moderator whether the poster is saying, "Kill all the Jews" or "Kill all the Buddhists" or "Kill all the Blacks" or "Kill all the Down's Syndrome kids". They all violate the rules for the same reason.

Well, the UN defines genocide as something more than just the literal definition. I tend to agree with them. But I'm confused here, you say you're open to the possibility of someone advocating genocide, and then you say it violates the rules?

And here's where I think you're missing the context. Yet again. Think about the situation. Making a case for the mass murder of a group or groups is part and parcel of making a case for war and other large military operations like, oh, say, an occupation of a country whose government your nation toppled and now has to deal with a partly religiously-motivated insurgency.

I disagree. There's a distinction between advocating war, and advocating mass executions of people based on their religion.

Although some might define war as murder, I don't think everyone agrees, but I don't know anyone who would honestly not be able to tell that rounding people up based on their religion and executing them is murder.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to make a ruling that essentially invalidates any post trying to put forth a pro-war or pro-military action viewpoint.

...this wouldn't be the case here. "Let's go invade this country" is again different from "Let's randomly select people according to their religious affiliation and execute them." One is foreign policy, ugly though it is, the other is a war crime.

Well, the UN defines genocide as something more than just the literal definition. I tend to agree with them. But I'm confused here, you say you're open to the possibility of someone advocating genocide, and then you say it violates the rules?

To clear up the confusion, when I say the I am open to the possibility of someone advocating genocide, I'm suggesting that I think it quite possible that someone could advocate genocide of a religious group as well. I don't rule out beforehand the ability of a poster to advocate genocide against a religious rather than genetic group.

But yes, advocating genocide is textbook trolling, so it's against the rules.

I disagree. There's a distinction between advocating war, and advocating mass executions of people based on their religion.

Although some might define war as murder, I don't think everyone agrees, but I don't know anyone who would honestly not be able to tell that rounding people up based on their religion and executing them is murder.

We allow people to advocate war and other large military operations. And guess what? They're going to be killing people en masse, some group of people, whether it be based on their national affiliation, religious affiliation, or ethnic affiliation. It really doesn't matter if it's murder or not.

If you have a problem with it because you think the person is advocating murder (wrongful killing) rather than just plain killing, then debate the person. As for me as a Moderator, advocating the killing of all people in a group is against the rules regardless of whether you or any other poster thinks it's murder or not. It's the killing everyone in the group that's relevant to our forum rules, and it's not relevant that people either choose to try to socially legitimize it by painting it as self-defense against an evil enemy or choose to call it murder and paint it as inherently wrongful.

And advocating mass killings of a national or ethnic or religious group, however evil I might find it personally, has been allowed, and would have to be, given the number of countries that have large numbers of a particular ethnic or religious group influencing their policies and social circumstances. As a result, it's nearly impossible to have a pro-war viewpoint or advocate any large military action without a defacto advocacy of mass killings of a group or multiple groups. Regardless of my personal opinions against mass killings, I'm not going to rule against people advocating those things.

...this wouldn't be the case here. "Let's go invade this country" is again different from "Let's randomly select people according to their religious affiliation and execute them." One is foreign policy, ugly though it is, the other is a war crime.

You can argue for a difference all you like, but in the context of Moderation, the relevant question is: What forum rule does it violate to propose ending a civil war (or sectarian violence, or whatever you like) by killing members of each of the parties that are at odds short-term so that they stop killing each other long-term?

It's not an obscene post. It's not explaining the most fearsome and effective ways to kill or suggesting that mass murder is a fun thing that we should all do. It's not threatening any particular poster. It doesn't seem to be malicious towards the two groups involved (in fact it seems to want peace for them). It's not defamatory towards the Shia or Sunnis. It's not spam either. That's how the list of things the FAQ says we can't post applies to the post you reported. I also took another look through the One-Stop Rules Shop's list of forum rules just to make sure, and didn't see any other rules that the post might break.

Even actively trying, I can't find any legitimate grounds upon which to rule the post illegal.

So would the difference, in short, be "let's kill group X until they stop action X" versus "let's kill group X because of reason X"?

One suggests there is a way to stop the action, a desired result that is not the actually wiping out of group X. The other suggests that wiping out group X is the desired result.