CNN Reports: Series of blasts rock Mumbai

[WelshBloke]

This is an interesting direction for P&N although it clearly marks a radical change if the rule is applied across the board. I would like it if shuts up conspiracy theorists and other extreme bullshitters, but we'll have to see how it's applied. My suspicion is that OCguy is right that this it impossible to enforce properly. I really hope this isn't just some uber-PC move to protect a certain religion when other religions and groups are similarly attacked all the time on this forum.



Don't you always have to assume facts if you're speculating? I'm not sure I see a distinction.

I dont see the problem.

If some dissident breakaway of the IRA starts planting bombs again (they are BTW) would it be OK for me to start calling Catholicism the "religion of peace" if dissident Protestants start causing trouble can I call all Protestants "terrorist sympathisers"?

We need to acknowledge the fact that there are terrorists of all religions and its not their religion that defines them its their unwillingness to use reasonable means to gain their ends.

Members of the IRA in the 70/80's had more in common with Islamic terrorists now than your average Muslim has.

 

[OCGuy]

I dont see the problem.

If some dissident breakaway of the IRA starts planting bombs again (they are BTW) would it be OK for me to start calling Catholicism the "religion of peace" if dissident Protestants start causing trouble can I call all Protestants "terrorist sympathisers"?

It would be OK here in the US for you to say whatever you want, because it is protected.

 

[Infohawk]

I dont see the problem.

That doesn't seem relevant to my post, which you quoted. Maybe you're responding to someone else?

 

[Bowfinger]

No the presumption was that she was suggesting black people were better off under slavery when a more reasonable and literal interpretation is that she is saying how sad it is that black families have declined since the end of slavery. There was no evidence for Homer's nonsense that she was sending a "fuck you" message to the black community. One could also argue it was a "we're with you" message to African-Americans who also dislike gay marriage. His entire thread was bogus speculation about Bachmann's motives.

Meh, I took it more as how her actions were insensitive and could be misinterpreted. I will concede, however, that I had preconceptions when I read the thread since this has been a hot topic locally. Others with less prior knowledge of the issue may have interpreted his OP differently.

 

[WelshBloke]

It would be OK here in the US for you to say whatever you want, because it is protected.

 

[woolfe9999]

The title and the entire first post was based on the unsubstantiated premise that Bachmann was endorsing slavery.

As far as I can tell you were the only one making it into a larger issue of her and other politicians signing these pledges. That wasn't really the topic and it didn't seem like anyone else shared your interest in the topic. You could always start a another thread about the phenomenon but I'm not buying that the thread was actually about her signing of the pledge generally.

No, there was more than just what I raised. People were discussing whether the statement in the pledge was even factually accurate, which is the issue YOU raised. You said it was a factual assertion, and the only thing relevant was whether it was factually accurate and several people proceeded to respond to that very point.

You still haven't answered the quesiton of why lock the thread instead of just altering the subject line. I don't think thread locking is the answer in most cases because threads started by people who are way out in left field can lead to legit discussion. Change the subject line, admonish the poster, even ban the poster if it is a persistent problem, but thread locking is usually not the correct approach IMO because it penalizes more than just the person whose conduct was inappropriate.

- wolf

 

[Red Dawn]

No, there was more than just what I raised. People were discussing whether the statement in the pledge was even factually accurate, which is the issue YOU raised. You said it was a factual assertion, and the only thing relevant was whether it was factually accurate and several people proceeded to respond to that very point.

You still haven't answered the quesiton of why lock the thread instead of just altering the subject line. I don't think thread locking is the answer in most cases because threads started by people who are way out in left field can lead to legit discussion. Change the subject line, admonish the poster, even ban the poster if it is a persistent problem, but thread locking is usually not the correct approach IMO because it penalizes more than just the person whose conduct was inappropriate.

- wolf

Well if you feel that topc and thread was worthy repost it yourself and use an appropriate thread title.

 

[woolfe9999]

Well if you feel that topc and thread was worthy repost it yourself and use an appropriate thread title.

I didn't say I personally had any further interest in pursuing the subject. That is an entirely different thing from my assessment of whether the discussion in the thread was worthwhile.

 

[BurnItDwn]

This is terrible. Reminds me of the 11/2008 subway bombings. There was a documentary called "Terror in Mumbai" about the subway explosions caused by Lashkar e Taiba. Was very interesting and informative, though it "could have been" so much more, it still was very good IMO.

It makes me sick to hear of these attacks specifically targeting the highest concentration of civilians. I wish the best of luck to the survivors, and hope the death count doesn't rise any higher than it already has. This is tragic.

I guess if you are batshit insane and evil, you will fight a "war" against people who are just trying to live their lives in peace.... Hitler and Stalin are dead, but it sounds like they have a secret admirer.

 

[Infohawk]

You still haven't answered the quesiton of why lock the thread instead of just altering the subject line.
- wolf

Changing the subject line makes sense when there's something to salvage in the original post. (I've already explained why I think the original post had nothing worthwhile in it and it's not interesting enough to me to keep debating it.) Sometimes there may be interesting discussions that result out of a troll thread but I still think the right thing to do is to end the troll thread. The interesting discussion can be raised in a new thread.

Imagine if Spidey started a thread that a standard Obama speech about immigration was a message to his base that he hated white people and it was entitled "Obama suggests he hates white people." IMO that thread can be locked as a change to the title is not going to help the thread. Someone else can post a valid thread that doesn't contain outright BS. And if two people start having a great discussion about race in America in that thread, they can continue it in a new thread as well.

Edit: And by the way it looks like that thread was opened up again with a new title which is very odd since now it just has mod commentary with no ramifications. :/ Maybe P&N is going towards something like a "parental advisory system" where troll posts are called out but tolerated? :O

 

[Inspector Jihad]

stay on topic people. michelle bachmann can have her own topic.

 

[Infohawk]

stay on topic people. michelle bachmann can have her own topic.

What is the topic? We're prohibited from discussing what might have happened in the actual news article. Many people are now talking about moderation. I wouldn't be surprised if the mods lock this thread but really what else is there to discuss...

 

[woolfe9999]

There really isn't much more to discuss until additional reports come out. I googled and as of this moment, I see nothing new.

 

[WelshBloke]

What is the topic? We're prohibited from discussing what might have happened in the actual news article. Many people are now talking about moderation. I wouldn't be surprised if the mods lock this thread but really what else is there to discuss...

No youre not.

The mods have just asked if people could refrain from basically going "OMG Muslims!".

 

[Infohawk]

Looks like the decision was reversed and the edits undone. So are there even any likely suspects besides an Islamist group? People were referring to other possibilities and I'm not familiar with them.

No youre not.

The mods have just asked if people could refrain from basically going "OMG Muslims!".

That's your lame interpretation. (That may been their motives but that's not what was said.) The mods were asking people not to speculate about details that we might not know about generally. That doesn't leave a lot on the table to discuss.

 

[WelshBloke]

That's your lame interpretation. (That may been their motives but that's not what was said.) The mods were asking people not to speculate about details that we might not know about generally. That doesn't leave a lot on the table to discuss.

Go through the thread and look at the edited comments. They are all variations of "OMG! Muslims!". Feel free to carry on being a drama queen about it though.

 

[davmat787]

TBF there's a difference between genuinely speculating which group may have done it and going "OMG religion of peace... evil Muslims...turn the place to glass...derp derp"

Then those people will get their due if they turn out to be wrong. Forum justice is quite swift and brutal as someones sig explains. If speculation is no longer allowed, this place will shrivel up and die anyway. During the short time I have been posting, this seems to be happening anyway and I know many others have echoed the same sentiment.

 

[Infohawk]

Go through the thread and look at the edited comments. They are all variations of "OMG! Muslims!". Feel free to carry on being a drama queen about it though.

How does that undermine anything I was saying? You are speculating about the mods intentions (which you may very well be right about). I was talking about what they actually said, which is that people should not speculate.

 

[WelshBloke]

How does that undermine anything I was saying? You are speculating about the mods intentions (which you may very well be right about). I was talking about what they actually said, which is that people should not speculate.

Thats how my 6 year old is when he wants to be awkward. Ignore what you think is right just keep arguing about the literal meaning of what was said, even if the real meaning is obvious.

Edit: anyway way off topic. I'm bailing before infractions are incoming.

 

[Infohawk]

Thats how my 6 year old is when he wants to be awkward. Ignore what you think is right just keep arguing about the literal meaning of what was said, even if the real meaning is obvious.

The mods set the rules here. They do so with words and sentences. It's rational to take their words and sentences at face value.

And I don't get much out of your 6 year old story except maybe you're not smart enough to present coherent and consistent rules to him? It's obvious in your head own maybe...

 

[Jaskalas]

1: I don't know why this wasn't simply locked. Poor battered and abused topic.

2: I'll address any decency concerns and more accurately say: blame Pakistan? Of course that might not be entirely accurate. Probably a terrorist cell operating and living within India. Who knows if they have even visited Pakistan.

So then what connects them, nationality? Which case I can blame Pakistan.

How do we hold a country like Pakistan accountable for terrorism? NO! Giving them money isn't an option.

 

[Perknose]

This was an unfortunate case of well-meaning but overzealous moderation.

Of course, reasonable speculation is allowed here.

Please, no further commentary whatsoever on the moderation here in this thread or any other thread.

If you have a complaint or any other feedback about the moderation, please post it in the sole acceptable venue, Moderator Discussons.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[Lemon law]

Why can't we accept the fact that Indian officials are behaving responsibly in not rushing to any premature judgements? The only hard information we have yet is that the death toll is rising from 13, to 17, to 21 at the last report I saw. In terms of the 81 injured, as the death toll rises, every other report of the injured reduces to be replaced with more dead victims.

There will be a future time to access who is responsible for these despicable terrorist acts, but now is not the time for worthless irresponsible speculation.

 

[Infohawk]

Why can't we accept the fact that Indian officials are behaving responsibly in not rushing to any premature judgements?

That's fine. Do you have any other groups in mind besides a Pakistani group or an Islamist group? This is your chance to have one of your predictions come true!

 

[Doppel]

There will be a future time to access who is responsible for these despicable terrorist acts, but now is not the time for worthless irresponsible speculation.

What is it the time for? The reality is that nobody victimized by these or knowing anybody victimized by them is likely to be reading this thread so to discuss it at all one all but is forced to march toward discussion of who is responsible.