Tom Cotton Wants Terror Detainees To 'Rot In Hell,' But He'll Settle For Gitmo

Dayum! Get 'em, Tom Cotton!

I have a new choice for Secretary of State.

*sigh*

The thing is, that's fine when you're talking about actual "captured-in-arms" terrorists. Or, if not "fine," at least defensible.

The problem is - and we have known this for years - is that there are a certain number of detainees who are not terrorists, who never were terrorists, who were the victim of tribal politics. Coalition soldiers go knocking on doors asking if you've seen anything suspicious.

"Why, yes, my neighbor Bob. He's totally suspicious. You should arrest him."

Now, sometimes, Bob was, in fact, a member of the Taliban or al-Qaeda or otherwise just involved in the insurgencies.

Sometimes, Bob had a really sweet piece of land that his neighbor wanted, or had simply had a feud with his neighbor about whatever, and the neighbor threw him under the bus.

But politics aren't that different around the world. Once you go to Guantanamo, you get the label of "terrorist" because they wouldn't have sent you there if you weren't a terrorist. QED. Now what happens you've had Bob hanging out there for an indeterminate period of years, receiving the same treatment as people we knew were part of al Qaeda, and Bob's country doesn't want him back, because the people in-country would see that as their government bringing home a terrorist.

Domestic politicians freak out about the idea of repatriation, either because they've bought into the tautological fallacy that "Bob wouldn't have been sent to Guantanamo if Bob weren't a terrorist," or because they believe "Well, we've fucked Bob over pretty good, and if we send him home now, he'll be SUPER terroristy because he's mad."

So when you stop and think about that latter argument, what you're saying is "By our actions, we've made him into a terrorist, and if we let him go, he will attempt to do us harm, so we need to keep him in prison."

That's not that different from arresting somebody domestically, railroading him for murder, and then saying "well, he's been exposed to murderers and rapists in prison, so if we let him out, he's just gonna go a-killin' and a-rapin' so he can rot in hell."

It's a soundbite that plays great with people like Jon who support a police state, or people who are so terrified about their safety that they will willingly accede to anything the government wants to do as long as the government promises it will keep them "safe," but it sets a troubling precedent.

That's the issue with the idea of closing Guantanamo. Nobody has suggested that we just release people for whom we have evidence of having committed acts of terrorism. The argument that has been made has been "if there's a case, take the accused to trial, get your conviction, and carry out sentencing. The prisoners who never should have been there in the first place should be let go."

If you're concerned that the sentence would be insufficiently light, the proper solution is to change the law. Indefinite detention in an offshore prison probably costs more than it would to throw them into Supermax, and it doesn't actually do anything to reduce the risk of domestic terror attacks. About the only act Guantanamo protects against is an assault on domestic prisons with an eye towards jailbreak. Nobody in ISIS, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other proscribed group is going to say "well, we WOULD try to attack New York City to punish the US for the detention of our people, but since they're detained in Guantanamo, we'll just take a pass on that."

Hey, I got no desire to leave Gitmo open. If we've gotten all the info possible, kill the f'n bastards & be done with them.

Once again, not everybody who has been imprisoned there was a terrorist, or even had information to share. That may yet be true of some who are still there - people who were arrested on the say-so of others with an axe to grind, who had no reason to be there in the first place, who had no value as prisoners.

The Republicans have spent the last six years trying to block the President's efforts to transfer *anybody* out of the prison. Maybe it's institutional mindset that "if you're there you're a terrorist because if you weren't a terrorist you wouldn't be there." Maybe they believe that if they can prevent even Barack Obama from fulfilling just one campaign promise, it will finally expose him to the country as a lying liar who lies and nobody will ever vote Democrat again.

Maybe the right-wing is batshit insane and trying to analyze their reasons for doing anything is foolish.

I don't know. But "they can rot in Hell" and "kill the f'n bastards & be done with them" speaks far more (or less) about the character of the speakers than it does about the character of the imprisoned.

And I purposefully posted the main context of his speech and then "The Huffington Post's" version of his speech. Just to show the differences between what he said and how a liberal slant really pushes a different agenda of what he said to their readers. :)

I'm reasonably certain that Jon has said that if they ended up at Guantanamo they're reasonably guilty of someone and thus he'd be OK with the so-called "collateral damage" of killing them all.

I'll be plain, just in case there's any confusion:
that's not "damage", that's planetary improvement.

Its going to be a messy fight in Mosul and if the military commanders think its justified, Obama should go ahead with the recommendation.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/06/us/isi...ops/index.html

You know, if somehow you ever got reported by someone with an axe to grind and wound up there...I'd feel bad. A little. While I ate popcorn and waited to see how much green energy would be created from the holy backtrack, Batman.

Jon is giving up liberal sensibilities for math. If accidentally capturing 10 innocents...and then letting those 10 rot with the 300 terrorists....then we are better off than if we let all 310 go...because each terrorist is going to kill 10 innocents a piece. The lesson? Dont ever hang out with terrorists because the US Army might just confuse your dumbass with um...being a terrorist.

Nobody is talking about releasing everybody. The discussion is release some, put some on trial with military tribunals and put some in supermax. At least argue against what's actually being discussed.

No, the lesson is don't live in a country where there might be terrorists, next door to neighbors who might have a grudge against you. They might just sell your ass down the river. Omelettes, broken eggs and all that.

You realize your "terrorist math" also justifies bombing the shit out of a civilian hospital if you think terrorists might be using it as a shield, right? Sucks to be them, but the lesson isn't don't be sick or injured in a place where bad people might be.

I would have thought 13 1/2 years would have taught even the most ardent post-9/11 pants-pisser about why betraying principles for expedience is a mug's game in the long run, but apparently we've no shortage of right-wing mugs willing to spin the wheel.

Well, to be fair, we've already released all the one's we figured were safe to release...which is like half of these fuckers and the bad one's went back and started killing people. Let's face it, we can't figure out who's good and who's bad, but they were all picked up hanging with some real bad dudes who were fighting Americans. If anything, if any of them that are left aren't guilty of shit, they got a pretty good axe to grind once we let them go. So...I agree, "Fuck 'em all"...and then let President Hillary apologize for our "gruesome" actions and make us look like heroes, because in the end, that decision would save lives and lots of them. One thing I know we can agree on--nobody wants more good people dying because of these terrorists and their "innocent" associates.

{shrug}

I don't believe in the fiction that there's any such thing as "an innocent Muslim".
And I genuinely pity anyone naive enough to fall for that fantasy.

{shrug}

Have you ever considered that being illegally locked up and tortured for a number of years has probably set any of the ones which might have been 'good' into a mode where they might no longer be .... just saying that the whole setup is a total farce and I find it ludicrous that anyone can justify having an illegal detention camp where people were tortured as being 'right'.

Right. Because every single one of the billion Muslims on the planet secretly harbors in his or her heart the desire to KILL ALL THE PEOPLE and meanwhile Christians certainly never the better part of a thousand years persecuting Jews for "blood libel" and killing Jews and Muslims in the Holy Land. They are, in fact, every single one just peaceful people who wouldn't dream of shooting up a temple of the wrong faith entirely because their victims' manner of dress is similar to the intended targets, or set off bombs at a gay bar with the intent of injuring/killing both patrons and first responders.

No sir, there is no such thing as a Christian who would commit violent acts against people with whom they have theological differences and, why, if there were? That would surely mean that the acts of those don't-exist-and-never-did extremists were sufficient to proclaim that there's no such thing as an innocent Christian. And we all know THAT can't possibly be true.

Welcome to how fucked up America has become in the 21st Century, Marc.

It's not right, it's not good, it's not fun, it's not anything positive. All I'm saying is that you let those people go and they will kill, just like the one's we've already let go. That's not a "fucked up, America", that's the world currently live in. There is no "right" when it comes to Islamic Extremism. It's here not because we water boarded a couple of bad guys to find Bin Laden...it's because we don't follow the faith of Islam. You do at least acknowledge that, right?

It's un-fucking-believable that this kind of pure bigotry is permitted on FOFC. If someone posted that "there's no such thing as an honest jew" or "there's no such thing as a hard working black", they'd be banned immediately and permanently. Considering that I know we have Muslim members, this is simply disgusting.

Ball is in your court, mods. Either you take appropriate action or everyone here will realize that you sympathize with these bigoted views.

Jon, Sack, and Blackie clearly all need a break from the political stuff. 2 weeks each.

Bottom line: Jon has some views that are extremely unpopular. It's not trolling to have those views. At some level, both of the following things are true:

1. Those who disagree with him need to chill. We don't disallow extremely unpopular viewpoints.
2. Jon needs to temper posting those viewpoints when someone else is already clearly riled up. Having those viewpoints isn't trolling. Using them at opportune times to send people over the edge is, to some degree, a form of trolling.

I can't be *certain* that's what he was doing there, but it seems like the prudent thing to just let all three of them take a break. Clearly these types of discussions tend to go more smoothly when the kind of inflammatory stuff that we've seen lately isn't posted.

John Kerry rated worst secretary of state in 50 years - MarketWatch

The below FP link has survey results (including ranking the Sec of States). There were 13 -- Rice, Eagleburger, Kerry were the last 3 in order.
The Best International Relations Schools in the World | Foreign Policy

The survey also asked about the most important foreign policy issue the US will face in 10 years -- Global climate change, China's military power, armed conflict in ME in order.

If it was me, I would have China and ME as top 2.

So you're giving the bigot and the people who disagree with the bigot two weeks each? Yeah, Ben, not feelin this one. I defended you with the DT boxing even to DT, but in my opinion, you done fucked up bigtime on this one.

I'm not sure it was bigotry. There is no such thing as an innocent Muslim. There is no such thing as an innocent Christian. There is no such thing as an innocent Hindu. There is no such thing as an innocent Buddhist. There is no such thing as an innocent atheist or agnostic. There is such a thing as an innocent Jew, but there was one and only one of those. Part of me wonders if that is what he was doing there, but he just said the one piece of it to troll.

Beyond that--and I don't know if this is a place where I'm changing, or, as I suspect, a place where the online community in general is changing--a big issue here is that there is SO much that passes for "discussion" that is little more than name-calling and villifying the "other side" in general. I'm reacting to that from both sides of this particular flare-up. There are very few people out there--and, I suspect, virtually none on this board--who are simply intent on making things worse. The huge majority of people, be they right or wrong in their personal political belief system, truly believe that their ideas, if implemented, are for the best. Yet more and more, online discourse is starting to resemble political attack ads way more than actual discussion. And this particular flare-up is a classic example of that.

Ben: If you're not sure Jon is bigoted, then either nothing I could say could convince you, or you're just plain not paying attention:

"....For as much as I lean toward the pretty black glass solution in much of the middle east"

(To Jon): It's unfortunate that some people think turban equals Muslim. Or that Muslim equals enemy.

(Jon) Well, at least you managed to hit .500. (Foz: He's referring to Muslim=enemy)

He then goes on to add the dictionary definition: Enemy: "1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe."

And if you wonder why online discourse is starting to resemble political attack ads? It's because people are upfront about their racism, bigotry and whackaloon-ness very loudly and publicly, and you have to spend hours trying to tell people that no, vaccines don't cause Autism, that Obama isn't a secret Muslim sent to destroy America, etcetera etcetera.

Boxing the people calling him on his bigoted bullshit the same amount reminds me of the "two sides to every argument thing... so the truth has to be in the middle". And it's not. So you have two options in such situations.

A) Leave political threads and let the crazies on both sides have at it.
B) Comment and risk getting boxed because "there's two sides"

The "it" was *that statement*. Not the entirety of his work. I don't suspend or ban people for their beliefs. I suspend or ban people for their actions. At issue was the *statement*, not his belief system.

Again Ben: To try to take Jon's statement in a vacuum, without realizing that Jon has a history of making inflammatory, attacking, bigoted posts like the one that touched off the replies that you're boxing people for (call it trolling if you must) is being aware of Jon's history and doing mental gymnastics worthy of a DC Public Relations Firm to appear "even-handed".. or you just plain don't pay attention to the board unless posts are reported.

Not saying that there's anything wrong with that from a forum member, I know that FOF the forum and FOFC/Off-Topic have drifted apart a bit..

But as a mod, you need to be aware of such things, and I personally think either way, you've failed in that duty with your actions this mornign.

So we're doing a member purge right when there's potentially new attention on the board for the first time in forever?

I notice DT never came back. That's the risk of this kind of stuff. At what gain? What's the point? If these guys come back are they going to be less opinionated? And that's the goal? Why? It's a political thread. I'd put that outside the top 100 of aggressively opinionated exchanges here. Maybe just lock the thread if OT stuff is going to be looked at this way again.

SirFozzie, I think you are treading into problematic waters. If, in a political forum, you, from the left can demand someone from the right be banned, then the opposite will be true too. For instance, should we be able to ban people who openly wish for more socialism or even communism?

Ben didn't ban them for having an opinion, he banned them for attacking each other...or perceived trolling.

....or rather....given time-out...not banned...

Dutch: When someone descends to the same level of bigotry and attacks that Jon has repeatedly in the past? Then, and only then, talk to me and see what I think.

I would've gone for a week for Jon, and nothing for Blackadar or SackAttack

And Molson: I don't think DT's two weeks are even over yet.

How is the board or the rest of us harmed by people getting a little short with each other? The board is definitely hurt by driving off posters and limiting content

And this is nothing more than my opinion, based on the impression I get, that Honestly, Ben would be happier if he didn't have to deal with Off Topic, 98% of his posts or so lately are in the FOF7 forum, so when things get reported, his natural impulse is to come in, see who has "heat" (ie, posting hot), and box them for a couple weeks without understanding the situation.

Looking back, I think both of those suspensions ended Friday or yesterday, so, ya, it wasn't as long ago as I thought. I don't feel any safer from having those guys gone, I don't feel like the board has been any better (I think we can all agree that the Super Bowl thread was much worse for DT's absence). So what's the point? Does this all have something to do with Steam?

And you're right that the mods have actually expressed disdain for the OT section of the board. Which is such an odd mod dynamic, but it's been a while and that seems to have died down. But hold on, it's blowing up again!

If you want to extend "direct personal attacks" to also include "offensive to me ideology" then the politics here are about to get the axe. You best be aware of that!

The funny thing is, there's probably no 3 more posters that have annoyed me more here, in totally different contexts, than DT, JIMGA, and Blackie. But the great thing is, I'm a grown-up, so I don't need a mod to protect me from them. I can ignore them, I can respond to things I disagree with. They're all such unique personalities that have been here forever, and the board loses a lot with their absence. There's no winners and no point to any of this. Oh well.

Honestly, if theses boxings are representative of the way it will be modded, killing it is a far better option. As molson said, this isn't anywhere close to the level of heat of dozens of discussions in this thread.

Dutch: There's a difference between "offensive to me ideology" and "rampant bigotry" and Jon crossed that line long long ago. As Blackadar said, there are members of every faith and creed here. Let's, for the sake of reference (and not to provoke anyone into any further religious flame wars), say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarian) religion was serious, and had a percentage of FOFC equal to the major faiths and creeds (Catholic, Islamic, etcetera)..

You follow that (you've been touched by his noodly appendage). You don't even have to be particularly devout, but it is what you believe.

Then you have someone taking every opportunity to express loudly, publicly, and angrily, that "Pastafarians are nothing more than Noodle-Fuckers and should be exterminated. Any nation that follows it should be on the list to be glassed.".

And this kind of attack turns personal with the kind of comments that Jon's made in the past and made in this thread (up till recently without consequences)

You can understand being slightly (or not so slightly) perturbed can't you?

If they were banned for life, I'd agree wholeheartedly with you, but it's a 2-week cooling off-period to lower the emotions a notch.

As infuriating as Ben can seem sometimes, you have to remember that he's almost mechanical in how he deals with this stuff. "Talk politics, but personal attacks won't be tolerated" has been the mantra for what? 15 years now? This is nothing new. So when long-time veterans fail to remember that and call other members names or troll them, I blame the aggressor for that, not Ben.

I've had a member on PM "warn"/threaten me about discussing opposing view politics here (regarding Ferguson, MO)...but since that's just a personal attack, I should be cool with that? (I did in fact, ignore it...but I didn't agree with that sort of method for a message board.)

But Blackadar has called me a racist before, so according to your criteria, I too should be lifetime banned?

I just have one question. Is a mornign like a benign morning or something??

DT's two weeks were up yesterday morning.

Either that, or "foz is still awake at 10:30 am and needs sleep badly". (in my defense, I slept from 10 PM-2:30 AM and then couldn't fall back asleep :P)

Interestingly, the survey was rating the "effectiveness" of each SoS, which is somewhat different from how "good" they were.

Sure, I'd agree Kissinger was the most effective SoS. But was he the best? I'm reasonably certain that if you asked those academics that question, there's be plenty who called him "most effective" who wouldn't call him "best". There'd probably be plenty who called him "worst" and also "most effective".

The story author is playing fast-and-loose with words, Edward. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

To relate to the Brady/Manning debate. :) While Kissinger might be similar to Tom Brady (most effective), Kerry's no Manning (best).

I'm good with this, but I'll point out that this is a new paradigm, and has not always been applied consistently in the past.


I don't think bigot is the correct term for someone who hates so many. Yes, I'm sure there's bigotry in there somewhere, but I think it goes far further with Jon. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's said so in an exchange with me at some point.


Oh come on, Ben. That's clearly not how Jon meant it.


Yep.

In the context of the argument, which was about the legality and morality of locking up and even executing people without due process, there absolutely is such a thing as an "innocent Muslim".

Throw in something about guns and we can have all our flame wars in the same place. :p

Are you seriously suggesting that socialism or even communism are equivalent to the worldview Jon espouses?

And before you quote deaths attributed to Stalin to me note that he was an Authoritarian, not a Communist.

Credit where credit is due....

Ben has completely ignored how disgustingly racist Jon has been for years and has been basically his biggest enabler. To finally (1) notice it and (2) do something about it is a revelation.

It sucks there's collateral damage - i.e. banning people for SAYING BEING RACIST IS NOT GOOD - but it's a step somewhat in the right direction.

I'd say being racist isn't good either and maybe we'd want to clean some of that stuff up, but I'd probably get boxed too.

Sure seems to opens the door for it. But basically the absolute misery it entails when you dont know when to say when.

Except the numbers weren't that way. What we did was more equivalent to quarantining the city of Tampa because the Bucs had MRSA (or whatever it was).

So you are saying there's equivalence between someone "wishing for more Socialism" and Jon saying it's ok to kill all Muslims (and liberals, and socialists, and probably everyone north of the Mason-Dixon Line, and...)?

I think we have a better chance of seeing more socialism than we bargained for than Jon actually offing some innocent Muslim.

But to be clear, speak your mind, I like to know where people are coming from.

I'm in!

Yeah, and it gets to be hidden through some veil of "Aw shucks, I just calls 'em like I sees 'em" when what's coming from one side is all obviously stuff that one wouldn't say face-to-face to a member of whichever group is being disparaged; through a combination of demographics and moderation this place has become a safe outlet for that kind of behavior.

We really over-complicate things. I love everyone, but if you try to blow-up, burn, mutilate, etc., I'm just not down with your existence. I still love you, and think that you are redeemable, but your actions make you dangerous and deserving of eradication. I do not, on the hand, think that everyone who follows your culture and religion, but do nothing wrong, deserve to be hurt or singled-out. That's just lazy.

I think I've gotten more simple as I've gotten older. I don't know if that's bad or good, but it's how I feel in my heart.

Are we fighting for the moral high ground or is this conflict simply tribalism on a massive scale?

I agree 100% with this assessment. And I think a lot of it comes from what passes for news networks on television. The most popular programs are just people who disagree screaming at each other. Debate isn't espousing your own views, it's restating your opponent's views in the most biased and inflammatory manner.

I used to love political discussion and I would get into this stuff with relish. Now I just think, in hindsight, I was often an asshole who enjoyed talking too much and listening too little. Good debate is like dating. You win when you're really in tune with who you're with. You listen as much as, or more than, you talk. You pick up on subtle cues when you're talking and refine your discussion.

My opinion of Jon... he's consistent in his viewpoint. He's reached a place where he knows, especially here, that people who enjoy political argument really disagree with him. He doesn't name-call, but he's aware of what pieces of his belief system rub people the wrong way. I don't think he trolls, but I don't think he listens, either. Not that many here give him a reason to listen.

I've said this before, but as I get older, I become more and more convinced that I know very little about the world. We're only experts about ourselves, and even that takes a lot of personal development and introspection.

So that's how you excuse racism? He's "consistent." Really?

Does he have to use a "name-call" when he wishes all Muslins to die in order for that to be racist or trolling?, or does his consistency give him a free pass?

What does this guy have on you and Ben to excuse his bigotry again and again and again? Openly wishing genocide not extreme enough for you?

To that end, just what *does* cross the line with you two - besides complaining about the mods?

There's a huge difference between I'd like to see the government fund free college by taxing the top 1% and I'd like to see all Muslims killed in a fiery holocaust.

It's been touched on above, but what constitutes a personal attack? If I told a Muslim board member that I hoped they were hunted and killed in the most painful way possible, I'd be shocked if I wasn't permabanned, but saying that same thing about all Muslims, obviously including the ones on this board, is not an offense.

I think that's an excellent example of modern political discourse - your argument that 1) I'm a mod (or have any say in suspensions), and 2) that complaining about Ben or I is the only certain way to receive a suspension. Are those fair or reasonable accusations? Is moving the argument to that level and putting us on the defensive (when we deny the accusations) helpful?

I don't want to say too much about Jon when he can't respond. Nor do I read every one of his responses. I think his position is very black-and-white when it comes to the law - he believes that the world is better off if anyone who violates the law is severely punished. Ben responded to the "innocent" argument, which is religious in nature. Jon is open about being very religious. I don't agree with them, but I don't see his posts as intentionally trolling (though I see Ben's argument about the last post being a form of trolling, though that would be a difficult standard to be consistent with). Guantanamo is a tricky argument - there's a lot of anger that those released may well be important cogs in future attacks, but also anger that a fair trial for someone accused of terrorism isn't always possible and we shouldn't imprison people for unpopular beliefs or association with those who are violent.

Are we talking about the world or just FOFC here?

The article was consistent in using "effectiveness" and it was just the title of the article that said "worst". It impossible (or everyone would be bored to tears and/or disagree) if I was to try reconcile every discrepancy.

Take the article for what its worth, it was defining Kerry as the worst SoS because he was the least effective. It would be better to understand how the article defined effective.

Well.... Muslim is not a race so racism doesn't really fit here...

True, but in that case you can make sound argument back on why that is wrong-headed as well.

It simply boils down to an argument as to if FOFC is going to allow hate speech in the name of free speech. What Jon says, time and again, is wrong on so many levels but he does have the right to say what he says. Now as to whether FOFC wants to allow it to continue, so as to allow free speech here at the expense of losing others from the message board who cannot, and/or will not, participate if such things are allowed, is the decision that has to be made.

I think if a person can't simply hit the ignore button, or deal with an opinion they dislike (repugnant or not), I don't have a problem with them leaving. If someone thinks they have the moral high ground, why would they put their tail between their legs, take their ball and go home? I mean, I've seen many things that were worse on here over the years (remember bragggggggadocious), and I've never run away.

Now, if a person wants to leave because they think the board is moderated very, very poorly, that's another thing.

I tend to agree. I don't have anybody on ignore but in many cases it just doesn't do any good to respond.

To me, the rancor, inflammatory and extremist opinions have always been around and not a 21st century thing. What makes today different is there are now very easy and very public ways express those opinions that hundreds, thousands and millions can see all of the time.

Wow, now there's a blast from the past. But yes, ignore is as good as a life time ban.

I mean, if I'm Jim I'm not sure I want people like Jon spouting off the way he does. This board (even though it's OT) has Front Office Football name on it. Do you want his rantings associated with your game? I would imagine not, but free speech is free speech. But at some point, the KKK is also free speech as well.

Just ignore people you don't like or don't want to read opinions of. I don't get this insistence these days on trying to get other people silences. Like children tattling to their parents because someone said something they didn't like.

Jon has extreme political views. Who cares?

It's a message board. Just a platform for people to communicate.

We can have and say we have free speech, but we can't have free speech that is free from consequences if it's wildly extremist and hate filled. Calling it like you see it or simply speaking your mind doesn't cut the argument. Everyone has an opinion. Jon has his opinion on things and the rest of us have an opinion of Jon as a result. This is why it always feels like it gets personal. Because it is. Some people (me included) call Jon out, because his views on things are completely fucked up and aren't acceptable in modern US society. It's not a discourse on middle ground or compromise, because with Jon there is none. I am shocked that he still doesn't get more time off for simply trolling. Half the shit he says is simply to get a rise, but the sad part is he believes every single thing he posts and I think that's what actually saves him.

This entire situation is much more mild than some we've had in the past. Ben can do as sees best, and while I may not agree with how it's handled I can always go back to some other medium if I'm not being served here.

I think this requires a further explanation. Who exactly determines what views people are allowed to have in society?

I would hope we could agree that the call for the extermination of a billion humans is out of line.

Although in this instance, my problem is the lack of consistency. As has been said, this isn't anywhere close to the hottest this thread has been. Seemingly arbitrary punishment makes it difficult to know what can and can't be discussed.

Is that what Jon was calling for? I'm rarely in this thread, so I'm honestly wondering. I read something about interment camps, which I don't agree with, but I would like to see anything about extermination of billions.

He's made it clear that he'd like to see all Muslims killed. Hell, it reiterated that position today on the FOFC Facebook page.

He has stated the the solution to illegal immigration by children or otherwise would be solved by simply killing them at the border.

I like Jon a lot, so I don't understand that. I'm also spending a ton of time on FOF7, so can you guys give me quotes? I can't condemn a friend without some kind of proof.

Did Todd seriously get IP blocked?

It could be a problem with the board. On my phone I get told my IP is banned fairly frequently even though it's not.

I was thinking about this earlier and for those wondering why Jon has gone this long without being boxed, there's a few different reasons I've surmised.

1. The Kindness Factor
Might as well get the most controversial one out of the way. Yes, as odd as it sounds, I would put Jon on the list of Top 10 Kindest Posters at FOFC. Those who haven't had the chance to get to know him personally probably aren't aware of this fact, but it's true.

2. The Lack of Hysteria Element
This one I realized when I was thinking of others of my politically invested friends, on both ends of the spectrum. There's a lot of people, who when they start on politics, have a shrill, emotional tenor to their posts/shares. They remind me of yapping dogs in that regard. Obviously that's an indication of how passionate these things are for them (Admittedly, I tend to fall into this trap re: Scott Walker and adjunctification of the American university), but with Jon, there's no hysteria/emotion there. It's just blunt, calm statement of his views, unlike others who are so eager, they become flamingly argumentative (again, this is both sides).

3. The Well-Roundedness
Unlike some political folks who seem to have the culture wars in this country as their biggest, if not sole, purpose in life, (I would say the current political firestorm *is* cultural as much as anything else), Jon's a very well-rounded individual with a lot of interests. He also has genuine intellectual curiosity, which I think a lot of people with extremist views are missing in their makeup.

In fact, my own opinion is that he's very much a product of his environment and personal experiences. It's not hard at all for me to envision a Jon so liberal that he makes DT look like a Tea Partier - all it would take would be being born and raised in another part of the country.

Taken altogether, I think more than a few people recognize that everyone has massive blind spots that seem entirely out of keeping with the rest of what we know about them. In Jon's case, it's a deep-seated authoritarianism. This doesn't mean I'd trust him to run the country, anymore than he'd trust me to run it. :D

But I do think the whole picture demonstrates there's a lot more to this than what some folks here may realize.

That was great Tim. :D

I'd imagine the Kindness Factor only applies if you were the right race, for one.

Race? Again, please show me something about race that was said. I'm just lazy and am curious.

Schmidty,
It was said, and several here have read it. If it matters, then look for it, some of it was just a couple pages ago. If it doesn't matter, then stop asking others to do the work for you.

<3 you.

You must be a mod favorite or something to still be here after this kind of post.

Just got word of this rumor and thought I'd jump back in here for a moment to clarify. I did not IP ban him, nor do I know of anyone else doing it. (I'll double-check, but I'm pretty sure only two others here have that level of access, and I seriously doubt either one of them did it.) To my knowledge, no one has been IP blocked/banned/anything in months, and probably years. The last one I can recall happened (I just checked) in 2012. If he's accessing from a different IP, it's possible that it's just an overlap with a previously-banned one. There are also some oddities that show up with Google Accelerator from time to time, but that's very rare.

I get minority privilege maybe ;).

Also maybe they realize that Jon basically was advocating for the mass incarceration and deportation, at best, and genocide, at worst, for my parents, my brother & sister-in-law, my nephew, my uncles, aunts, and cousins (I am the only Christian in my extended family; they are all practicing Muslims).

It must be awesome to be a minority with all those perks and things.

It's why everyone wants to be gay, right? ;)

Gay and Muslim must be the best ever.

Just checked. Actually, the last IP in the banned list was from 2011, not 2012. Apparently I never IP banned the guy from 2012. (His account *is* banned, though, just not his IP.) At any rate, I'm now comfortable expanding my earlier statement: not only did *I* not ban that IP yesterday, but I'm confident that no one else did it either--be it by accident, or on purpose for any reason. I have checked the CP logs. There are several reasons that someone might need to access the section where IPs can be banned without actually banning an IP, and any time it's even accessed with no action, there's a log entry for it. Prior to a few minutes ago when I opened up the IP banning section to check, no one had even accessed that area in several months.

Whew.