New rules??

[alchemize]

Just noticed this on Virgin's locked thread:

We have no time or tolerance for one sided, hateful propoganda. Please take your bigotry elsewhere.

AnandTech Moderator

Be interesting to see how this "new policy" is applied...

PS I watched the little flick. It was certainly one sided. Bigoted and hateful? A stretch at best...

Certainly a far cry from any of PhillyHamas's posts calling for genocide. Don't see those getting locked or deleted.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I agree. I feel that, while it most certainly was on sided, it wasn't much different than some of the other things that are posted about this subject.
If that was "one sided" and so forth then so was Czar's UN thread about the "2000 homeless palestinians".

I just hope that this issue will be looked at fairly by the mods.

I think both sides are wrong and are acting like kids in a sandbox, but to single one side out as hatefull and bigoted is a tad much. Also there are other subjects(not just the Israeli/Palestinian one) that people post one sided hatefull rhetoric about

Meh - the Mods have a tough job to do.

CkG

 

[Czar]

I didnt see the vid but Cad, its a news story for Haaretz for crying outloud! its like complaining about a story that makes Bush looks bad on Fox, well not exactly but you get my drift

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Czar
I didnt see the vid but Cad, its a news story for Haaretz for crying outloud! its like complaining about a story that makes Bush looks bad on Fox, well not exactly but you get my drift

No - I wasn't saying you were doing it on purpose or anything - it's just that I don't see much difference between a thread saying that Israel cause 2000 homeless and a thread that post things anti-palestinian like Virgin did. My beef wasn't with you - it was with the way Virgin's thread was handled.

CkG

 

[Czar]

well, I didnt see the video so I cant realy comment on that

 

[alchemize]

I can think of a few posts buy that french guy, guyjudohumpingclub, that were CLEARLY bigoted and full of hatred. Nary a word from the mods. Must have caught a mod in a "hamas" kinda mood.

 

[PatboyX]

well, yes. i think there is something to be said for the mood of whoever sees it...but the reactions seemed to be so violent against this film i would think there is something to it. and i think when films are invovled it takes on more the tone of being seen as "factual" information rather than opinion. when we post something it is clear that we are presenting those ideas. but a video could be taken as a source and it gets rather messy.
however, i did not see the film.
im putting my faith in the mods on this one.

 

[LunarRay]

I wonder what folks think about footage of one of those MOAB things going off from the perspective of the victim of such a blast.
I can think of many things that are used to defend a position in debate.
It seems to me in the Israeli/Palestinian issue there is so much distance between the folks of this subject that anything said, shown or debated is by the circumstances going to be... unsettling, polar and like the actual situation, full of hostile positions.

I guess there are limits to what ought to be Linked. (like nudity where the words depict the nature of the issue and are OK)
From the POV of the "Forum" I suppose this 'clip' (which I've not seen) goes beyond what is civil to be disseminated... assuming war has a civil side or component.

edit to finish last sentence