Marijana Mirt - why is this thread being censored by being blocked/locked?

I am raising a question regarding this particular thread, which addresses the public activism of one of the leaders of the protests against veterans.

Marijana Mirt — this topic hasn't been censored by outright deletion (unlike that other one I’m also inquiring about), but rather by being blocked or locked entirely. And why is that?

If a user happens to veer off-topic, that shouldn't be handled by censoring the entire discussion, regardless of whether someone might find it convenient to suppress criticism of her public actions.

I kindly request that this censorship be rescinded. It is my sincere hope that we won't have to address the issue of censorship on this forum over at other media outlets, provided you are actually capable of fixing this... and capable of abandoning these restrictive practices...

It isn't censorship; it’s just cleaning up inappropriate posts or issuing warnings, which is different. As for why the thread was locked—well, the moderators over at the Politics board don't think we need an active discussion where someone somewhat public is essentially being targeted with insults that cross the line into being indecent, or perhaps even libelous. We really don't need that here.
There are no "untouchable" topics, and anything can be debated, provided it stays within the bounds of the PDF rule. The Politics section, for instance, follows this:

Article 2.
The core values of the Politics subforum are cultured, reasoned debate, civilized behavior, equality among participants, tolerance, fairness, community spirit, efficient discussion, and respecting individuals while listening to all sides.

This thread will remain locked.

It feels like you're just trying to dress up censorship in a more palatable outfit. If you truly wanted to prevent the specific issues you're citing—assuming they even exist in the first place—there would be no need to resort to blocking threads or silencing discussion entirely.

It’s an open secret that the owner of this platform maintains a close relationship with Matija Babić, who has made no secret of his alignment with individuals like Marijana Mirt... we all know how the game is played here...
...but to actually shut down a thread or censor any text that adopts a critical tone toward Marijana Mirt is quite simply an unacceptable form of censorship.

feralranger said:You’re just trying to dress up censorship to make it look like something else. If you're actually worried about preventing the issues you mentioned—assuming they even happened in the first place—you don't need to go around shutting down the whole conversation or censoring the thread.
.

It’s censorship, plain and simple. There was absolutely no reason to make a "special" issue out of those arrests over the IBM posters, nor should there have been that whole ordeal involving the seizure of protest signs outside the hospital opening—not to mention the way Joe Biden handled it all. None of this should be happening.

Charles Fox10 said:Look, there’s a difference between censorship and just cleaning up the trash. Deleting inappropriate posts or banning users isn't censorship—it's maintenance. Honestly, the reason this thread got locked is that the moderators over in the Politics section don't think we need an active discussion where people are basically putting targets on someone's back. When you start throwing around insults that cross the line into being outright indecent—or even potentially litigious—it becomes a liability. We really don't need that kind of mess here.
There’s no such thing as sacred cows around here. You can debate just about anything you want, but there’s one catch: everything needs to stay within the lines of the rule pdf. Take politics, for instance:

This thread isn't going to be unlocked.

Are you serious, Cuca? Is it just me getting singled out like this? It feels like everyone else gets a free pass while I’m the only one being labeled.
Could they file a private lawsuit? Sure, they could. But honestly, when someone goes around calling our veterans "mercenaries," they aren't just attacking individuals—they’re basically trying to tear down the entire legacy of the war itself. It’s like trying to erase the very foundation of what we fought for.
Let’s not even get started on everyone else and all those "labels"—you know, from the left wing to the right. Honestly, that's just how things should be. But this? This right here is where I have to draw the line. It just doesn't work.
What is this even supposed to be? Some kind of special feature? Is she really that controversial that we can't even talk about her?

Brenda Cook4 said:What is this supposed to be? Something special? Is she somehow above being discussed here?

It appears that individuals like this are essentially untouchable within certain "American" and "democratically minded" media outlets.

But really, does this forum have to sink to such depths?

Jerry? (Cook, you’ve certainly made your stance clear...)

feralranger said:It seems like people like this are totally untouchable in the "mainstream" and "democratic" American media outlets.

If that’s what they call freedom of speech, then I guess I’m doing it wrong—because real free speech means everyone gets a turn to respond, not just one person shouting into a void where no one is allowed to talk back.

And that's how they shut down the conversation; they just slap a "label" on the poor soul and say, "Look at how they express themselves!"

"Johnson is a total piece of trash, did you even call Klein and Glogowski???" Mary Smith asked on her Meta page.

edit:

Freedom of speech, apparently... as long as it doesn't involve directly calling for someone to burn down a church. It would be quite something if she actually stood in front of a cathedral with those kinds of messages, just to see what kind of reaction we'd get. Whether it's a Catholic cathedral or any other house of worship, it would be an eye-opener.

The whole thread was just pure mindless vitriol, and now that people are starting to post those inflammatory, politically charged images, I can only assume the entire discussion is being rigged from the ground up.
That’s why I’m on the same page as Charles Fox10.

feralranger said:You're just trying to mask censorship. If you want to prevent the issues you're mentioning—assuming they even exist—you don't need to shut down or censor the thread.

It’s common knowledge that the owner of this site is close with Matthew Babb, and Matthew Babb has made his support for people like Mary Smith quite clear... everyone knows that...
...but banning a thread or censoring critical takes regarding Mary Smith is nothing short of blatant censorship.

You clearly know more than I do.

Brenda Cook4 said:.............
Really, Charles Fox10? Why is she the only one getting labeled?
"Actionable"? Sure, through a private lawsuit against whoever wrote it—unlike, say, calling veterans "mercenaries," which basically insults the entire military.
Not to mention all the other labels, from "leftists" to "rightists."
So what makes this case special? Is she suddenly off-limits for discussion?

"Actionable" refers to inciting physical violence against her. You should know that, just as you should know that moderator commentary isn't allowed in a thread.
And where on earth did you get the idea that starting a thread is forbidden??

If a particular post violates our guidelines, then we deal with that specific entry (or the user responsible for the infraction) accordingly. There is an established procedure for everything.

To censor a thread regarding those kinds of people who operate out in the open is nothing short of shameful censorship.

I am insisting that Jerry's ads be released.

Charles Fox10 said:You clearly know more about this than I do.

Honestly, calling for physical violence against that person is just pathetic.And you really ought to realize that, just like you should know that commenting on the moderation team within a thread is strictly off-limits.
Besides, where on earth did you get the idea that starting a new topic is forbidden??

It’s honestly sad—using insults like "total fraud," "vile creature," or "half-wit"—it's all just pathetic. It's personal. And from the perspective of the forum itself, I don't exactly approve of those kinds of comments either.

On the other hand, inciting violence? That is absolutely NOT allowed here. Period. That needs to be sanctioned and deleted immediately. I don't even know why anyone would question that.

I've started threads before only to have them pulled because they were deemed "unnecessary" or some other excuse for a standalone discussion. You see the deleted topics, but I've already forgotten the specifics—all I know is that was the explanation given.

The point is this: keep the thread under control. There are plenty of mods over on the Politics board to handle things; their job is to moderate the conversation, not just go around deleting entire threads.

rowdytiger13 said:The whole thread was just pure vitriol. And seeing as they’ve started throwing around those old-school hate images, I can only assume there's some serious trolling going on under the surface too.
That's why I'm siding with Charles Fox10 here.

What do you even mean by "vitriol"? People are venting about everything on the New York Post. That's just how it goes. This specific topic definitely earned a bit of a backlash.

If someone breaks the forum rules, please, give them a warning or a ban. But shutting down a thread just because people are being blunt? That feels a lot like censorship to me.

edit:
I guess I'm just an idiot.
Pointless.

Given the absolute hysteria and the mob mentality being directed at one individual simply for having a different opinion—to the point where she's receiving daily death threats—I can certainly understand why the thread(s) would be closed to prevent participating in such a disgusting witch hunt.

As for you "democrats" who joined in on this lynching, including pedantic nonsense like repeatedly blaming someone else for her tax debt, maybe take a moment to reflect on your actions. Personally, I hope Mary Smith receives all the protection and legal support she needs to sue everyone spreading falsehoods, regardless of which media outlet they represent.

Extremists who openly parade around with hate speech signs that promote arson seem to enjoy some sort of special media protection, whereas topics concerning such individuals ought to be strictly blocked or censored altogether!

feralranger said:If a specific post breaks the rules, then that individual post—or the user behind it—should be handled accordingly. There’s a protocol for everything.

Censoring a thread about these kinds of people who operate out in the open is just shameful censorship.

I’m standing my ground on getting Jerry's posts removed.

Fine.☕

The photos shared in yesterday's thread definitely and undeniably originate from Canada, depicting a local woman alongside her two sons. While the physical resemblance between this lady and how Miriam Mirt might have looked in her younger years is quite striking, it is absolutely certain that the person in those pictures is not Miriam Mirt.

Because of the intense emotions that particular photo stirred up during the discussion, I actually stepped in to suggest that the thread be temporarily closed. Had it not been shut down, I suspect many more forum members who took part in it would likely be facing bans today.

The Washington National Cathedral has supposedly been "relocated" to Canada just to provide some convenient cover for censorship, all in a desperate attempt to claim the photograph isn't "authentic" enough to justify silencing it?

This kind of blatant, cherry-picked censorship is exactly what you’d expect from someone like Matthew Babb and his brand of bottom-of-the-barrel tabloid journalism.

feralranger said:Those extremists who... They’re actually out there doing it... walking around in broad daylight, wearing those damn signs filled with nothing but pure, unadulterated hate speech. It's insane. Just total, blatant vitriol right in front of our eyes... and nobody is doing a thing about it. They get a free pass from the media just for calling for arson... it’s unbelievable. They have this special little VIP protection from the press, and then anyone who tries to actually talk about what they're doing gets shut down or censored immediately! It's a joke...

feralranger said:Washington National Cathedral... everything about it just feels off. So, they basically moved the cathedral over to Canada just to justify the censorship, right? It’s such a blatant move... trying to claim the photo isn't "authentic" just so they can pull the plug on it. Pure manipulation. All to make their little censorship spree look legitimate... what a joke.

This kind of selective censorship is exactly what you’d expect from someone like Matthew Babb and his trashy tabloid journalism... absolute garbage.

Look, I’m not even talking about that photo in front of the Washington National Cathedral. It’s about that shot with the extremist hat and those two kids. Seriously. And honestly, I don't get what you were trying to say in your first post—this idea that extremists should just get a free pass to wave their banners without any censorship or media protection? Give me a break. If Mirt were posting here and breaking the rules, she’d get sanctioned just like anyone else on this board. Plain and simple. But just because someone is out there spewing hate speech or being provocative outside of this forum doesn't mean we lose the right to call them out right here... it doesn't give anyone a hall pass to act the same way on this platform.

If someone posts something completely irrelevant, it gets removed. It’s simple enough.

However, my question is this: why on earth has the entire discussion thread regarding Mary Martin—an individual who is quite clearly an active public advocate—been censored or blocked?

It seems obvious to me that her views align perfectly with those of Matthew Babb and his circle of quasi-democrats, who apparently find her extreme rhetoric perfectly acceptable, provided it serves their agenda. But frankly, this forum shouldn't be stooping to Matthew Babb's level of selective censorship by suppressing discussions about activists of this sort.

So, I am calling on Jerry to step up and make a statement... does he truly intend to drag this platform down to such a low, practically Babb-esque level of yellow journalism?

feralranger said:Extremists who... They’re out in public wearing transparent masks while spewing extreme hate speech. They get special media protection just for calling for arson, yet we’re expected to censor any discussion about them. It's backwards.

It’s interesting how you have two different sets of standards for this. You seem to interpret any mention of the Storm however it suits your narrative. For example:

feralranger said:A storm is just wind, but metaphorically, it can mean anything—from a military operation to a political shift, an economic surge, or even a sports team's name. It always symbolizes raw power and energy. In fact, in the US, more than ten different sports teams have "Storm" right there in their name.

Honestly, if you mention "Storm" to Americans, they just think about the weather. They think about wind and rain, nothing more.
No, not when someone is quoting. Controversial art. Then you have to take it literally. There’s no metaphor here.

So, quoting an artwork is considered extremism, but calling for police intervention and demanding we do it all over again? Got it. Makes perfect sense.

feralranger said:If someone posts something irrelevant, we just delete it.

My question is why the entire thread regarding Mary Smith, a public activist, was censored.

It's obvious her ideology aligns with Matthew Babb and those other pseudo-democrats who find her extreme hate speech acceptable—but this forum shouldn't stoop to Matthew Babb's level of selective censorship regarding types of activists.

So I'm asking, Jerry... do you really want to drag this outlet down to such a low, practically Babb-esque tabloid level?

Just one small correction regarding the article you keep linking:

...a drunken, disheveled brat...

Go ahead, lecture us about pseudo-democrats and tabloids again while linking the same garbage...