Political threads

[the_alias]

Necrodamus -
I locked the second thread and left the door open for you to contact me.

I also took the time to reply to your PM with an offer to investigate what you alleged.

You provided no evidence and did not even have the polite decency to offer up a reply to me before rushing to post here...

I am a bit taken aback at your rudeness and rush to post about a 'conspiracy'.

If you are so desperate to talk about gun politics maybe this isn't the forum for you.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

Personally I think that if someone uses a name like "kalifornia" or saying "Kentucky is full on inbreeds" hurts someone's feeling then said person needs to grow a thicker skin. That is in no way a personal attack on an individual. It is a stereotype of a particular area. And we are all adults here and I don't think we need to be sheltered from the big bad world. As preppers we should be stronger than the rest of the sheep I would think. If you can't say anything nice...Is there a reason to say something like that in a thread? Is it going to be offensive to the majority? Is it political in nature? Consider these before posting thigns that may be offensive.

as for the political side of things. Everything is political. Opinions are political. Ideas are political. Laws are political. Life as preppers is political. Our own government now classifies anyone who stores food as a potential terrorist. And with programs like fast and furious it could be argued that the and does in fact push a leftist agenda. Quit pushing your agenda. THis is part of the problem, takign little chances to snipe your opinion out there and acting cute about it. Grow up. (getting off topic a bit.. Sorry)

Yes it can get out of hand if you start personal attacks though.

I guess in the end it comes down to their house their rules. So everyone shut the hell up and play nice or you will be punished like bad children. Not cute. Not at all.

The "thick skin" thing has come up more than once. If you continually have to tell multiple other people to "get thicker skin" then they are not the problem, you are.

[the_alias]

Personally I think that if someone uses a name like "kalifornia" or saying "Kentucky is full on inbreeds" hurts someone's feeling then said person needs to grow a thicker skin. That is in no way a personal attack on an individual. It is a stereotype of a particular area. And we are all adults here and I don't think we need to be sheltered from the big bad world. As preppers we should be stronger than the rest of the sheep I would think.

Manners don't cost a thing but many pay dearly for not having them.

[cmxterra]

As preppers we should be stronger than the rest of the sheep I would think.

Humans are not sheep. ZS does not allow referring to humans as sheep. It's called dehumanization. Google it.

And yet here we are on a site called Zombie Squad. Irony much?

[the_alias]

As preppers we should be stronger than the rest of the sheep I would think.

Humans are not sheep. ZS does not allow referring to humans as sheep. It's called dehumanization. Google it.

And yet here we are on a site called Zombie Squad. Irony much?

No.

I had to explain this the other day.

Zombies are metaphors for disasters NOT people. I don't understand where this confusion keeps coming from.

[Kommander]

As preppers we should be stronger than the rest of the sheep I would think.

Humans are not sheep. ZS does not allow referring to humans as sheep. It's called dehumanization. Google it.

And yet here we are on a site called Zombie Squad. Irony much?

There is a post by shrapnel in the rules section explaining this it you are intrested.

[cmxterra]

As preppers we should be stronger than the rest of the sheep I would think.

Humans are not sheep. ZS does not allow referring to humans as sheep. It's called dehumanization. Google it.

And yet here we are on a site called Zombie Squad. Irony much?

No.

I had to explain this the other day.

Zombies are metaphors for disasters NOT people. I don't understand where this confusion keeps coming from.

The common idea in peoples minds are Zombies were People. In every movie, print ad, cartoon etc you see a Zombie was once a person. So that is why people in general see zombies as metaphors for people that were turned from normal good wholesome beings to ravenous mindless scavengers.

[raptor]

The "thick skin" thing has come up more than once. If you continually have to tell multiple other people to "get thicker skin" then they are not the problem, you are.

Well said.

I would also point out to cmxterra that having a thick skin works both ways.

Adults need to have thick enough skin not to have to post things to intentionally annoy people. An adult should also to say something simply like..."Sorry no offense intended". Apologies for offensive actions do not make people look weak...it makes them look like responsible adults.

[Woods Walker]

Im trying to understand why we have a ban on political threads and yet political threads are allowed to be posted as long as they are not conservative in view.

That's simply not true. I clearly remember threads that were locked because they went into religion and politics both conservative and liberal. This may sound like a shocking revelation but there isn't a science behind a Mod's job. A thread won't get locked in a certain amount of time no matter what is going on. We aren’t Domino’s
Pizza after all. On a side note like Rapter said no one likes locking threads.

Necrodamus,

We depend on our members to help so if you see a thread that is political why not just report the thread. If there is no action then contact a moderator or administrator.

[raptor]

The common idea in peoples minds are Zombies were People.

It is in fact a common idea in most people's mind that zombies are a Hollywood fantasy or an old superstition and hence do not exist.

[LowKey]

When you started talking about the 2nd Amendment and so on, that's a political argument.
.

Not necessarily. It can also simply be a legal argument.
There isn't a single law on the books in the US that isn't limited by one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Any laws we have are supposed to be drawn up in accordance with the Constitution.
Throw out discussions on the legality of something because the foundational documents of our legal system are being used as a lens to scrutinize a particular law and you may as well throw out any discussions relating to legality of any issue.
I'll agree there is a fine line between a discussion of an Amendment (in this case the 2nd) as it relates to a law and discussion of an Amendment as politics.
Life isn't always as neat and compartmentalized, and it can keep the mods busy at times.....buy to categorically damn discussions of illegality/legality simply because the laws in question are based on the founding documents of our legal system (which are also the founding documents of our government and political system) and those founding documents may be cited or discussed where germane to the issue at hand is a bit shortsighted. The phrase, "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater" comes to mind.
IMHO, if it's brought into the discussion from a legal aspect it should be kosher.

[cmxterra]

The common idea in peoples minds are Zombies were People.

It is in fact a common idea in most people's mind that zombies are a Hollywood fantasy or an old superstition and hence do not exist.

Longer than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie

[TDW586]

When you started talking about the 2nd Amendment and so on, that's a political argument.
.

Not necessarily. It can also simply be a legal argument.
There isn't a single law on the books in the US that isn't limited by one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Any laws we have are supposed to be drawn up in accordance with the Constitution.
Throw out discussions on the legality of something because the foundational documents of our legal system are being used as a lens to scrutinize a particular law and you may as well throw out any discussions relating to legality of any issue.
I'll agree there is a fine line between a discussion of an Amendment (in this case the 2nd) as it relates to a law and discussion of an Amendment as politics.
Life isn't always as neat and compartmentalized, and it can keep the mods busy at times.....buy to categorically damn discussions of illegality/legality simply because the laws in question are based on the founding documents of our legal system (which are also the founding documents of our government and political system) and those founding documents may be cited or discussed where germane to the issue at hand is a bit shortsighted. The phrase, "Throwing out the baby with the bathwater" comes to mind.
IMHO, if it's brought into the discussion from a legal aspect it should be kosher.

Correction; in the context of this case, it was clearly a political statement. That is not the same thing as saying it is incorrect.

The 2nd Amendment has great relevance in discussions of whether or not something should be illegal...but that is inherently a political discussion. The 2nd Amendment has no direct relevance to whether or not something is illegal, which is what would be appropriate for a legal discussion on this forum.

EDIT: In any case, that is neither here nor there, so if you'd like to have a discussion about the 2nd Amendment with someone who is strongly pro-gun, for some reason, feel free to PM me.

Back on topic, when Necro gets back on here, hopefully he can point out some of the liberal-bias threads that were not locked. I'm not aware of any, but the discussion really can't go anywhere until he clarifies what he was talking about.

[dogbane]

The common idea in peoples minds are Zombies were People.

It is in fact a common idea in most people's mind that zombies are a Hollywood fantasy or an old superstition and hence do not exist.

Longer than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie

This issue has been discussed at length elsewhere in this forum* and any ZS forum member should be able to understand and explain the metaphor. After you've paid your dues to become a member is the wrong time to be second-guessing the purpose of the forum.

*And in fact codified here on Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:02 am.

Edit to be more helpful:
The Zombie Metaphor: "Zombies" are an anthropomorphization of the mindless, capricious, and arbitrary forces of destruction that can disrupt the normal functions of your life and your community. These can include weather events, geological disturbances, economic crises, and collective human behavior such as riots and warfare. Zombies do not represent living or literal human individuals or social groups of any kind. In the terms of contract law, "zombies" can be understood as any "force majeure" event.

[Kommander]

I have to say that I am a fairly hard core "let people die in the street" libertarian and I don't have q problem with how this site is run.

[AmirMortal]

Funny, I stopped posting as much around here because I had the opposite impression of the OP here. I continually noted a conservative slant among the general posting population here on ZS. While I love ZS, even though I haven't been here much lately, the constant undertones of "Libtard", etc got really boring and annoying to me. This is a preparedness site, and the gun forum here is pretty pervasive, which is much of the reason I was attracted here in the first place, well, that and the no politics rule. Unfortunately for me, it seems that the vast majority of folks who post on these topics are conservative by default, and I can handle that, but the constant snark just pisses me off. Over the years I have seen many posters make similar accusations to those of the OP, and like others in this thread, I really have to laugh...or cry.

As for the Kali/"LIBS WANT YER GUNS!"BS, here is a statement of fact: Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford act in '67 in order to tone down the Black Panters(who at the time were OC'ing en mass)--yet it affected all gun owners. He also supported the Brady Act. Bush sr banned the importation of "Assault weapons", Rudolph Giuliani (R) sued 26 weapons manufacturers in 2000. Paul Helmke (Of Brady fame) is a long-term registered republican, and John Lott is a Democrat. The recent HB 822 was sponsored by one each of the R and D parties.

The apparent liberal slant on gun control is an illusiuon put forth by those with their hands tangled in the strings . Both sides have sought to severely limit those rights, and frankly, this is why we avoid such discussions here.

ETA: Overall I feel like the mods here do a pretty good job of keeping things civil, and making sure the rules get followed. It is usually the same folks who repeatedly try to insert their political/religious sentiment into discussions, or project their feelings about "others" onto anyone who disagrees with them. Even though I've been shooting since I was 5, and own several firearms, I won't go near most gun forums due to the stench of one-sided political discussions, and the constant resonating noise of the echo chambers.

[LowKey]

The common idea in peoples minds are Zombies were People.

It is in fact a common idea in most people's mind that zombies are a Hollywood fantasy or an old superstition and hence do not exist.

...well, don't forget the Haitian variety, puffer fish toxin and all. Being from NOLA I'm surprised you omitted them. Baron Samedi would be disappointed

[Doctorr Fabulous]

The common idea in peoples minds are Zombies were People.

It is in fact a common idea in most people's mind that zombies are a Hollywood fantasy or an old superstition and hence do not exist.

Longer than that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zombie

This issue has been discussed at length elsewhere in this forum* and any ZS forum member should be able to understand and explain the metaphor. After you've paid your dues to become a member is the wrong time to be second-guessing the purpose of the forum.

*And in fact codified here on Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:02 am.

WHAT? YOU MEAN ZOMBIES AREN'T SECRET CODE FOR [race/group of people/everyone who is not as superior as me]???

Dude, Welcome to the Imperial Oligarchy of Zombiehunters.org. Board makes the rules, mods enforce them, we follow them, or we vote with out feet (by leaving.) The rules thread explains all of this in explicit detail.

[LowKey]

<snip>

The 2nd Amendment has great relevance in discussions of whether or not something should be illegal...but that is inherently a political discussion. The 2nd Amendment has no direct relevance to whether or not something is illegal, which is what would be appropriate for a legal discussion on this forum.

Shenanigans.
If a statue passed by a legislative body is in contradiction to any of the Amendments in the Constitution then the law is null and void from it's inception as per SCOTUS ruling. (Marbury v. Madison).
That being the case (and case law), any of the Amendments may have direct legal relevance.
I'm not suggesting discussion on what "should" be legal or illegal, I'm talking about discussions determining the validity of a statute or the application or misapplication of any given statute. Such discussions could be on any legal issue, such as confiscation of prepping supplies under the claim of "hording" or "requisitioning" property over the owners protest with reference to the 4th Amendment. That one popped up (legitimately) in more than a few threads in the aftermath of Katrina. Not politics, just law.

As I said, there is a fine line between referencing an Amendment to determine the legality of a statue and politics. Tread lightly and with caution, and when in doubt get the opinion of a mod....that's one of the reasons they're here.

*Edited to add*
TDW, I read "When you start talking about the 2nd Amendment" where you had written "When you started talking about the 2nd Amendment". My response was about making reference to an Amendment in general, your's was about this particular case.
I need to clean my contacts.
Sorry for any confusion.

[Doctorr Fabulous]

<snip>

The 2nd Amendment has great relevance in discussions of whether or not something should be illegal...but that is inherently a political discussion. The 2nd Amendment has no direct relevance to whether or not something is illegal, which is what would be appropriate for a legal discussion on this forum.

Shenanigans.
If a statue passed by a legislative body is in contradiction to any of the Amendments in the Constitution then the law is null and void from it's inception as per SCOTUS ruling. (Marbury v. Madison).
That being the case (and case law), any of the Amendments may have direct legal relevance.
I'm not suggesting discussion on what "should" be legal or illegal, I'm talking about discussions determining the validity of a statute or the application or misapplication of any given statute. Such discussions could be on any legal issue, such as confiscation of prepping supplies under the claim of "hording" or "requisitioning" property over the owners protest with reference to the 4th Amendment. That one popped up (legitimately) in more than a few threads in the aftermath of Katrina. Not politics, just law.

As I said, there is a fine line between referencing an Amendment to determine the legality of a statue and politics. Tread lightly and with caution, and when in doubt get the opinion of a mod....that's one of the reasons they're here.

*Edited to add*
TDW, I read "When you start talking about the 2nd Amendment" where you had written "When you started talking about the 2nd Amendment". My response was about making reference to an Amendment in general, your's was about this particular case.
I need to clean my contacts.
Sorry for any confusion.

Attitude is a big one too. "Did XYZ Law-Enforcement Agency follow the law when they?" is different than "OMG LOOK WHAT XYZ Sherrif DID!!!"

[whisk.e.rebellion]

ZS is where rabid republicans can sit down and talk trigger tuning jobs on AR variants with devout democrats; where successful businessmen, doctors and lawyers can sit down and talk about backpacks and hydration pouches with struggling students and minimum wagers; where short back and sides sunday go to meeting types can sit down and talk vegetable gardening with punk rocking tattooed pagans; where paranoid skywatchers can sit down and talk food & water storage preps with your highly skeptical grandmother and it's because of the things we don't talk about when we sit down to talk that this is so.

That's the unofficial summary of our rules; It's what we don't talk about that allows us to get along and discuss what we do talk about.

If you need to vent about politics, there are other places for that. This isn't the "showing people the door" speech; go somewhere else, get it out of your system, then come back here and discuss preparedness. Hell, take a break from discussing preparedness and discuss zombie movies.

What you've got to remember is that these forums are not Zombie Squad. These forums are Zombie Squad's online presence that we'd rather be a compendium of useful information and not a bunch of people bickering about politics or religion. The moderating staff works very hard to this end. Much of the online community works very hard to this end. Most of our real world communities work very hard to this end. Given that I (and the rest of the moderating staff) have been accused of being everything from liberals to conservatives to fascist to Nazis, I think we're doing a damn good job of this. Anyone who is going to accuse ZS or the ZS forum moderating staff as a whole of being politically biased needs to look inward. Seriously, we can't be hard on both sides of the spectrum.

[ninja-elbow]

Personally I think that if someone uses a name like "kalifornia" or saying "Kentucky is full on inbreeds" hurts someone's feeling then said person needs to grow a thicker skin. That is in no way a personal attack on an individual. It is a stereotype of a particular area. And we are all adults here and I don't think we need to be sheltered from the big bad world. As preppers we should be stronger than the rest of the sheep I would think.

as for the political side of things. Everything is political. Opinions are political. Ideas are political. Laws are political. Life as preppers is political. Our own government now classifies anyone who stores food as a potential terrorist. And with programs like fast and furious it could be argued that the and does in fact push a leftist agenda. (getting off topic a bit.. Sorry)

Yes it can get out of hand if you start personal attacks though.

I guess in the end it comes down to their house their rules. So everyone shut the hell up and play nice or you will be punished like bad children.

This one post skirts about 3 rules. C'mon man, get better at it please.

Why grow thicker skins when ZS, a charitable organization looking to engage people YOU may not like or agree with, can just avoid calling people names and poking fun at sates?
We don't call people sheep.... or dogs, or monkeys... etc.
Not all of us believes the gub'ment is watching us for storing food and classifies us as terrorists.

[ninja-elbow]

Bottom line is:
Have manners please. Just a modicum. Lot's of very common people do it everyday IRL.

Edit: And try to think outside your own box for a second. Just becasue you think it's right don't mean it is for others. Don't debate like your opinion is the only correct one. Doing this will open up a world of options for you and you may learn a thing or 3 ... like we have a lot of the same opinions. It's just too bad people like to wear a "I'm one of THESE!!" t-shirts and get stuck there.

[Czechnology]

As preppers we should be stronger than the rest of the sheep I would think.

Looks like someone should have looked before their $15 leaped.