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

crimsoncyclist71 said:It is truly fascinating how you manage to employ such convenient double standards, allowing any mention of the Storm to be interpreted however best suits your current narrative. For instance:

Of course, when you mention "Storm" to Americans, they immediately think of nothing more than a gusty weather pattern or a passing breeze rather than anything of historical significance.
It is quite frankly exhausting when someone decides to quote a previous comment just for the sake of being pedantic. A controversial piece of art. One must assume that we are required to interpret this quite literally, as there seems to be absolutely no room left for any semblance of metaphor.

So, let me get this straight: quoting a piece of art is considered extreme radicalism, yet calling for military intervention and demanding that we repeat the exact same police actions is perfectly acceptable? Got it.

Fabrication. My non-existent double standards are truly, deeply pathetic—a thoroughly clumsy and transparent attempt to justify censoring any discussion regarding Mary Smith.

They’re pulling stunts even more reckless than Joe Biden trying to shield that fed, John Doe, during the extradition mess. Honestly, people who engage in such absurd acrobatics are really just doing themselves a massive disservice. They’re finally pulling back the curtain..

crimsoncyclist71 said:Look, if someone is quoting a controversial piece of art, you have to take it at face value. There’s zero room for metaphors here.

So, according to this logic, quoting a work of art counts as extremism, but calling for police intervention or demanding we repeat the same actions doesn't? Got it. Makes perfect sense.

Wait, so you’re actually defending that MM poster? The one where the bottom text basically tells people to burn down a church by saying 'Contribute'? Are you seriously telling me that an 'artistic work' can include such a blatant call to action like 'CONTRIBUTE'?

crimsoncyclist71 said:Just a tiny little correction regarding that article you keep insisting I linked to:

Where on earth did I link an article? I merely provided a link to the photos, which are quite undeniably authentic. That individual in the photo is Mary Smith, holding a sign right in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City. The absurd notion that this is some church in Canada or wherever else you've conjured up simply cannot enter my mind... honestly, the more desperately you attempt to defend extremism, the more you end up exposing your own character. That is the only result here.

I haven't even read those texts, let alone linked them (so your attempts at misrepresentation are entirely wasted); one simply uses Google Images to find the specific shot that possesses the necessary sharpness and resolution...

feralranger said:Inventing double standards that don't exist is a pathetic, clumsy attempt to justify censoring the discussion about Mary Smith.

They’re pulling stunts more convoluted than Joe Biden trying to protect that operative John Doe from extradition. People making these kinds of moves only expose themselves.

Everything I said was a direct quote. Anyone interested can see exactly how much hypocrisy is actually present on your end.

Brenda Cook4 said:So you're defending this Mary Smith poster that basically tells people to burn down a church with the phrase 'Contribute'? You're saying this 'art piece' includes a very clear call to action: 'CONTRIBUTE'?

If there's no issue with calling for new "Storms," then what's the problem with this poster? Tax debt?🙄

crimsoncyclist71 said:I have meticulously quoted everything perfectly, so anyone actually paying attention should be able to discern precisely where—and to what extent—your own double standards are at play.

If there is absolutely no issue with calling for a new "Storm," then I fail to see where the actual problem lies with this poster. Is it the tax debt? 🙄

What exactly did I quote? Where? Why on earth are you trying to twist my words and lie to me? Please, step away from the discussion regarding censorship and the situation involving Mary Smith, stop trolling, and quit flooding the thread with these baseless provocations which, quite frankly, are nothing more than fabrications that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

crimsoncyclist71 said:If there's no issue with calling for a new "Desert Storm," then what exactly is the problem with this poster? Is it just unpaid taxes? 🙄

Don't try to twist my words here. I never said any of that; I was simply questioning why you were defending it, asking if that’s actually okay. So, fine. It’s perfectly acceptable to call for burning down churches? Great. Honestly, we definitely don't need a discussion about people who spread hate and incite violence. Absolutely not.

feralranger said:What exactly are you quoting? Where? Why are you twisting my words and lying? Get off this thread about censoring the discussion on Mariana Mart, stop trolling and don't spam irrelevant garbage here.

The best move would be to just silence me whenever I say something you don't like. That would really show how much you actually care about free speech and your supposed opposition to censorship. 🤣

Anyway, you dismiss calls for military action as nothing, yet you label quoting a work of art as extremism.

To me, that only reinforces why closing the thread on Mariana Mart is the right call. It would immediately devolve into a circus of hate, labeling, and blatant lies.

crimsoncyclist71 said:It would truly be most efficient if you simply prevented me from uttering anything that happens to clash with your personal preferences. That would be the ultimate way for you to demonstrate just how much you value a diversity of opinion and how fiercely you oppose censorship.🤣

Anyway, you somehow interpret an appeal to military discipline as mere wind, yet you immediately brand the quoting of a work of art as outright extremism.

To my mind, this only reinforces my own conviction that we ought to close the thread regarding Mary Smith, because if we didn't, it would instantly devolve into some sort of grotesque festival of hate, labeling, and shameless falsehoods.

What on earth are you rambling about when you mention military intervention? Such nonsensical and disconnected fabrications only serve to expose your cheap and clumsy attempts to justify censoring the discussion about Mary Smith.

Brenda Cook4 said:Don't try to twist my words. I never said that. I was simply asking if it's acceptable to justify your stance by doing exactly what you're criticizing. So, fine. It's perfectly okay to call for burning down churches. Great. We definitely shouldn't have discussions about people who spread hate and incite violence. Absolutely not.

I'm not sure it's worth wasting energy on someone stuck in such blatant double standards. They view a Metaphorical nod to Desert Storm as fine, yet they label a Metaphorical call to burn churches as extreme hate speech. Pick a lane. Is the right to use metaphors universal, or is it a privilege reserved for a select few?

feralranger said:It wasn't some military operation; I don't know what you're rambling about. Making up nonsense like that just exposes your clumsy attempts to justify censorship regarding Mary Smith.

Oh, right. It's about the wind, not a military crackdown... It's obvious to everyone that for Americans, "Desert Storm" is just a synonym for a gust of wind, not a combat operation. ☕

crimsoncyclist71 said:I honestly can't tell if it's worth wasting breath on people who just refuse to let go of these stubborn double standards. They're fine with using a Metaphorical reference to "Desert Storm," but then they claim that a Metaphorical call to "burn down churches" is nothing more than pure extremism and hate speech. Just pick a side already,is the right to use metaphors universal, or is it some exclusive privilege reserved for certain groups?

Look, I’ve made my decision. To me, it's crystal clear: calling for church burnings is a hard no. Yet, for some people, it's still somehow excused as "art."

Stop inventing these "double standards," stop spinning the narrative, and stop dodging the point. I’d really love it if you stopped validating even this "Contribute" bit, especially if you're busy defending an "art piece" about burning churches. Because, let's be real—that "artistic work" didn't include the sentence "CONTRIBUTE." This isn't art; it's a blatant call to action.

I think we need a dedicated thread on whether it's acceptable for Mary Smith to call for church burnings and how the legal institutions responded to it. As both a citizen and an atheist, I genuinely want to know.

...this troll is attempting to derail the entire discussion with nothing but irrelevant nonsense...

The question remains for George: does he truly want to see this media outlet sink to the level of Matthews' so-called "objective" tabloid journalism? In other words, is he actually intent on maintaining the censorship surrounding that activist.

Regardless of the outcome, this thread regarding Mary Smith will inevitably provide the answer to that very question.

Brenda Cook4 said:Look, I've made up my mind. To me, calling for arson is a non-starter. Some people still insist on labeling it "art."

Stop inventing "double standards," stop spinning the narrative, and stop making excuses. I wish you’d stop even validating that "Donate" button if you're going to defend "artistic works about burning down churches." Because, frankly, that "piece of art" didn't include the sentence "DONATE." This is an explicit call to action.

I think we need a thread on whether it's acceptable for Mary Smith to call for church burnings and how the authorities responded. As both a citizen and an atheist, I want to know.

It's obvious to me. You've decided it's fine for some people to use a Metaphorical call for military action without it being seen as starting a new war, but when someone else uses a metaphor to "call for burning churches," suddenly it can't be a metaphor and has to be taken literally. Honestly, this whole discussion is pointless because there's no use arguing with someone who doesn't even try to hide their double standards. You should probably get back to spinning stories about who actually owes taxes...

crimsoncyclist71 said:Look, I get what you're saying—you've decided that if someone uses a Metaphorical way to call for military action, it shouldn't be treated as an actual call to war. But it’s funny how that works, isn't it? When someone else uses a metaphor to talk about "burning down churches," suddenly it can't be a metaphor anymore and has to be taken literally. Honestly, this whole argument is a waste of breath because why bother debating someone who clearly uses double standards? You should probably just get back to spinning stories about who's actually dodging their taxes...

See, your posts are a perfect example of what we simply won't tolerate here on the Forum. Just so we're clear: making excuses for inciting violence isn't just a violation of our rules—it's a criminal offense in the US.

Brenda Cook4 said:Look, your posts are living proof of what this Forum will tolerate. Justifying calls for violence isn't just breaking the rules here—it's a criminal offense.

No, that’s strictly your own interpretation of a Metaphorical poster. I'll say it again: if referencing a military operation can be viewed Metaphorically, why can't this poster be interpreted the same way? What's the actual issue here?

Are you suggesting that when the Bishop called for a new "Desert Storm," he was actually calling for an open war?

crimsoncyclist71 said:No, that’s strictly your own interpretation of a Metaphorical poster. I’ll say it again: if referencing a specific military operation can be interpreted metaphorically, then what exactly is the issue with interpreting this poster the same way?

Are you trying to suggest that when the Bishop called for a new "Desert Storm," he was essentially issuing an open invitation to start a whole new war?

Go ahead and start a separate thread about the Bishop—I’ll have to look up exactly what was said, because Desert Storm and burning down a church are definitely not the same thing. One was a defensive operation against an aggressor, while the other certainly isn't. But regardless, I'll check the context. Just let me be clear: stop trying to justify calling for action against a church. Honestly, posts that incite a mob or call for violence aren't allowed here, period.

crimsoncyclist71 said:No, that is quite simply and exclusively your own subjective interpretation of a Metaphorical poster. I shall reiterate once more: if one can interpret a reference to a specific military operation as being metaphorical, then what exactly is the issue with interpreting this poster in that same Metaphorical fashion?

Are you truly suggesting that the Bishop's call for a new "Desert Storm" was actually an overt invitation to start a fresh war?

I haven't linked any "garbage"; I have merely provided authentic photographs from Mary Smith. Please cease the lying and the attempts to misrepresent my position, as you are only succeeding in exposing your own lack of integrity.

A simple search on Google images will provide you with these photographs.

As for whose server is hosting them when you follow a link to embed an image—honestly, I haven't the slightest clue, nor do I care to look, nor is it even remotely relevant. I am not in the business of analyzing their interpretations, nor do they interest me... what matters is that the photos are genuine and serve as evidence of the extreme hate speech spewed by the activist Mary Smith, whom you (along with several others) seem hell-bent on protecting through censorship.

As far as I am concerned, this thread can simply stay locked.
The reality is that we have to distinguish between this Forum and the world outside its walls. Within this community, we maintain certain minimum standards regarding the level of discourse, which actually places us above the rest of the world—and I’m not exaggerating; just look at the way people write in unmoderated comment sections on news sites. For instance, if someone who isn't a staunch supporter of President Kolinda Grabar-Kitarović dares to say one unkind word about her, they are immediately met with dozens of reports, formal complaints are opened, and there is all this talk about insulting the office of the President of the USA... And yet, at the same time, there is now a demand here to allow the complete, unrestrained bashing of public figures using language that would shame anyone in a bar fight. This is then justified by pointing out that the same public figure allows things like tavern-style profanity or signs calling for the burning of churches on their Facebook page or in their public life. Well, dear colleagues, if Mary Smith were a member of this Forum, she would be handed red cards for such tactless outbursts. If she had written something even remotely similar to that sign about burning churches in the Religion PDF (which I moderate myself, so I know the criteria), she would have been flagged for hate speech. But while she has these outbursts in the broader public sphere and we merely comment on them here on the Forum, we will continue to watch our language—even when she doesn't. And that principle should apply generally, not just to this specific case.

Regarding feralranger's argument that we should sanction offenders rather than closing threads, he is fundamentally correct, and I agree with him. However, allow me to suggest that occasionally—and I mean truly occasionally—we encounter threads where allowing posts to continue would lead to an inflation of red cards, because the situation becomes uncontrollable. In these rare instances, the only solution is to close the thread; otherwise, the alternative is systematically handing out warnings to 50-60% of the users, which is madness. If we went down that road, it would only trigger accusations of censorship and the suppression of free speech. Threads concerning men's rights are exactly like that (we don't close them because discussing men's rights is unacceptable, but because you cannot put an end to the misogyny within them), and clearly, the thread regarding Smith was of the same nature—which was made quite obvious by the attempt to sneak in a photo of a partisan to smear her by implying she belongs to some anti-American element.

It isn't going to happen. At least not in my view, and it seems the moderators are in agreement here as well.
If Anderson wishes to speak up, feel free.