Epiphany about "trolling" enforcement

Quote from The2AMBearArms : While the rules don't say it, we actually have a heckler's veto on this forum. Let me explain. Trolling is posting things you don't believe with the intent on getting outraged responses. However, many liberals will respond in an outraged fashion to legitimately held and good faith conservative beliefs. When conservatives like myself get our posts deleted and get warned for "trolling," simply for stating conservative positions that we believe, the moderators are in essence granting a heckler's veto to liberals, who can act "outraged" and get the original post deleted as trolling, even if it was not posted with the intent on disrupting the forum. Since conservatives don't fly of the handle at liberal beliefs, conservatives don't get a similar "heckler's veto." Thoughts?

As long as I've been here ,I'd say it works both ways. Moderators have a tough job but do a pretty balanced effort IMHO. I believe I read one of your post's a while back about how liberals cry when they don't get there way. It seems like your doing that now.

Due to heckling from conservatives who are unwilling to face facts, I got repeatedly banned for using the term "Christian terrorist" to label Mexican drug cartel members who use the exact same terrorist tactics (beheadings, kidnappings, etc.) as jihadists in Middle East.

Quote from kharvel : Due to heckling from conservatives who are unwilling to face facts, I got repeatedly banned for using the term "Christian terrorist" to label Mexican drug cartel members who use the exact same terrorist tactics (beheadings, kidnappings, etc.) as jihadists in Middle East.

Mexican drug cartel members are all Christians? And they behead people for Christianity?

Quote from Deusxmachina : Mexican drug cartel members are all Christians?

They were born Christians just like al-Qaeda and Taliban members were born Muslims.

Quote : And they behead people for Christianity?

Not always. Like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, they kidnapped and beheaded people for opium/heroin.

Therefore, if we limit ourselves to calling the Taliban and al-Qaeda as Islamic terrorists, then it follows from Kharvel's Second Law that we should limit ourselves to calling the Mexican cartel members as Christian terrorists. Or at least accept without heckling the "Christian terrorist" label as applied by certain posters of The Podium to the Mexican cartel drug members.

But of course, the mods are being egged on by conservative hecklers expressing hypocritical outrage to ban those who dare to use the "Christian terrorist" labels while liberally applying "Islamic terrorists" labels to drug kingpins in Afghanistan. I wouldn't be surprised if I am banned once again by the mods after you and the other conservatives privately message the mods and heckle them to get me banned for daring to use the words, "Christian terrorist".

Seems because of the mixing of religion and politics in Islamic theocracies, terrorism for political purposes is more intimately tied to the Islamic religion than it is in Western nations, which observe more of a separation between church and state.

Not sure that separation applies in Mexico like it does here. But posters here are probably using our standard being unfamiliar with practices in Mexico.

Quote from kharvel : Due to heckling from conservatives who are unwilling to face facts, I got repeatedly banned for using the term "Christian terrorist" to label Mexican drug cartel members who use the exact same terrorist tactics (beheadings, kidnappings, etc.) as jihadists in Middle East.

Your own posts highlight the idiocy of your position. First, it's mujahideen not jihadist. Second, that one is primarily a drug cartel and the other is primarily religious zealots on a jihad makes for a significant distinction. Third, the fact that you mention repeatedly gives away that you were told that it was against the rules and continued anyway. No one should have sympathy for that. You might not like the rule but ignoring it over the mods warnings is exactly what we are talking about wrt to the OP and his insistence on testing the boundaries.

Quote from kharvel : Due to heckling from conservatives who are unwilling to face facts, I got repeatedly banned for using the term "Christian terrorist" to label Mexican drug cartel members who use the exact same terrorist tactics (beheadings, kidnappings, etc.) as jihadists in Middle East.

Whoa, blast from the past.
Long time, no see.

Why did you ignore the first time you were banned?

Quote from kharvel : I wouldn't be surprised if I am banned once again by the mods after you and the other conservatives privately message the mods and heckle them to get me banned for daring to use the words, "Christian terrorist".

Wait, conservatives can heckle mods and get people banned?



Holy cow, Wu is in for some serious heckling now.....







Hey Kharv, welcome back!

Quote from kharvel : They were born Christians just like al-Qaeda and Taliban members were born Muslims. Not always. Like the Taliban and al-Qaeda, they kidnapped and beheaded people for opium/heroin. Therefore, if we limit ourselves to calling the Taliban and al-Qaeda as Islamic terrorists, then it follows from Kharvel's Second Law that we should limit ourselves to calling the Mexican cartel members as Christian terrorists. Or at least accept without heckling the "Christian terrorist" label as applied by certain posters of The Podium to the Mexican cartel drug members. But of course, the mods are being egged on by conservative hecklers expressing hypocritical outrage to ban those who dare to use the "Christian terrorist" labels while liberally applying "Islamic terrorists" labels to drug kingpins in Afghanistan. I wouldn't be surprised if I am banned once again by the mods after you and the other conservatives privately message the mods and heckle them to get me banned for daring to use the words, "Christian terrorist".

interesting point. i never really thought much about the opium cartels in afghanistan the same way i thought of the cartels in latin america. i've always took for granted that the islamic terrorists in the middle east were politically motivated, not drug related.

do you have any articles where i can read more on this?

Quote from thikthird : interesting point. i never really thought much about the opium cartels in afghanistan the same way i thought of the cartels in latin america. i've always took for granted that the islamic terrorists in the middle east were politically motivated, not drug related. do you have any articles where i can read more on this?

Scroll up.

Quote from darkfrog : Your own posts highlight the idiocy of your position. First, it's mujahideen not jihadist. Second, that one is primarily a drug cartel and the other is primarily religious zealots on a jihad makes for a significant distinction.

They are NOT religious zealots in any sense. They are simply political terrorists in guise of religious zealots. No different than the Vietcong, Tamil Tigers, Lashkar-e-Taiba, or any other political terrorist organizations.

Both the cartels and the mujahideen want the overthrow of their respective governments and the imposition of their brand of laws. If we are going to call the mujahideen Islamic terrorists, then we might as well call a spade a spade and refer to the cartels as Christian terrorists.

Quote : Third, the fact that you mention repeatedly gives away that you were told that it was against the rules and continued anyway.

You say tomato and I say tomatoe and yet I am the only one breaking the rules? Like I said, the mods are being heckled to ban any reference to Christian terrorists even though it has been clear from the very beginning that the term "Islamic terrorists" could hardly apply to the political terrorist organizations like Hamas/Hezbollah or drug cartels like the Taliban or al-Qaeda.

Quote : No one should have sympathy for that. You might not like the rule but ignoring it over the mods warnings is exactly what we are talking about wrt to the OP and his insistence on testing the boundaries.

I have no problem with the rule as long as it is being enforced FAIRLY. If you are going to ban the usage of "Christian terrorists" then you should also ban the usage of "Islamic terrorists" to describe political organizations and drug cartels in the Middle East. Where is this balanced approach from the mods? Why should I put up with this clear case of bias from the mods?

Quote from andyfico : Scroll up.

so you're not going to contribute in another thread?

Quote from thikthird : so you're not going to contribute in another thread?

I did contribute. Scroll up.

Quote from andyfico : I did contribute. Scroll up.

link?