Govt tends to grow if you use violence against it

[Kat Kanning]

I asked Rob to leave.  He didn't.  He's now been banned.

[CaveDog]

For what it's worth, I participated in this thread only because I interpreted it as making the point that violence against government only gives another excuse for it to grow and become more repressive. My intent was to affirm that violence is counterproductive and if my participation in any way contributed to arguments advocating violence then you have my apologies.

[FTL_Ian]

I asked Rob to leave.  He didn't.  He's now been banned.

[lastlady]

Is advocating self-defense bannable too?

Yes good question. I am curious about that as well.

[Kat Kanning]

I'm not making some sort of list of rules to use this forum.  The reason why Rob was banned was that he was posting in detail about the gang rape of my little girl. He refused to tone his violent rhetoric down when asked.  He refused to leave when asked.  If he'd been sitting in my living room doing that, he'd have been asked to leave my house, too.  My daughter reads this forum from time to time.  She doesn't need to see that.  She doesn't need to hear it in our living room.

Maybe I shouldn't be making some blanket statement that you shouldn't talk about violence against the government here.  We set up this place as somewhere we could come together to plan activism.  The forum's morphed into a place where I don't want to be, don't read many of the posts, and is irritating to me.  Why should I continue paying for that?  Just use some common sense people, and you won't be banned.  I don't actually like banning people or moderating.  So I've been in a quandry - make this place something that I want to use, or shut it down, or ??

[Tom Sawyer]

Thanks for dealing with a difficult situation Kat.

To some the forum is just cyber-posing...

To those of us who have children and friends who can be placed in harms way, in the real world, by behavior on this forum... I say think about what good will come from your contributions here.

If the authorities that we deal with regularly think that we may pose a violent threat, things can get dangerous real quick. I don't want my son, who has been to most of the protests and made the papers on more than one occasion, to be caught in the middle between thugs.

[Recumbent ReCycler]

I too dislike violence, but believe that everyone should not be prohibited from having the means to provide for their own defense or the defense of their familiy.  When the Oklahoma City Federal Building was bombed, restrictions were placed on the chemicals that were used in the bombing.  When some foreigners took over some planes with box cutters and crashed them into some buildings, a federal agency was formed and we were no longer allowed to carry pocket knives and other sharp objects on planes.  I much prefer working to try to elect people who will not restrict liberty and to educate those who are in government.

[Dave Ridley]

I'm pretty irritated at you, Dada, for starting this thread at a time when I'm trying to tone down the "let's shoot the bastards" talk on this forum. 

Dada sorreee

Dada trying to helping

[Kat Kanning]

OK, I'm not irritated anymore.

DoL:  I'm not trying to ban guns here.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Gov tends to grow

[eques]

Whoops!

Talk about reading comprehension issues, apparently I had (at least) one of my own.  I misread the question about self-defense as "are discussions about self-defense bannable now?" as opposed to what was actually said.

Blah.

I took it to mean that somebody thought that powerchuter was merely advocating self-defense, which is why I wrote what I did.  Uh.  No real excuse though, I should be more careful as I'm biting other people's heads off.

Time to cash in some of that karma, I guess.

[aworldnervelink]

I am very disappointed by this decision. The thing that seems to be forgotten in this entire debate is that we all have ignore buttons and they work very well. Nobody on this forum has to have a single photon hit their eyeballs from anyone that they find objectionable. These are the same arguments that the statists make for controlling the mass media, right down to the "it's for the children" canard.

The idea of a supposedly libertarian forum being censored is absurd. I think I saw Kafka at a coffee shop the other day. Kat, if the forum has become distasteful to you, I'm sure there are other people (myself included) who would be happy to support it.

[Kat Kanning]

Yeah, you're welcome for providing this place all this time.

[aworldnervelink]

To those of us who have children and friends who can be placed in harms way, in the real world, by behavior on this forum... I say think about what good will come from your contributions here.

If the authorities that we deal with regularly think that we may pose a violent threat, things can get dangerous real quick. I don't want my son, who has been to most of the protests and made the papers on more than one occasion, to be caught in the middle between thugs.

Roger, you can't have it both ways any more than Tim could take his family to Ed's house and spin it as a harmless sleepover. Our supposedly "radical" politics may have consequences, and we all need to understand and accept that.

"Martha, I've decided not to sign the Declaration of Independence. Our family could be placed in harm's way."

"Good idea, Thomas. Let's go have a picnic."

[aworldnervelink]

Yeah, you're welcome for providing this place all this time.

Nice ad hominem response.

Kat, I'll be happy to pay the hosting costs for this forum moving forward if you'll agree not to ban people or censor posts.

Do we have a deal?