Skeptic Project

We got an email from stp52x:

Hello,

A recent thread has been created in your forum in reference to another thread which I had created in the Zeitgeist Movement forum. Various accusations have been made about the movement due solely to this thread which I have created, expressing my beliefs alone, within the thread, and I would like to partake in this conversation.

So, I created an account for him. This should be interesting.

Plus it's also funny to me that Zeitards are still watching our forums.

@The Real Roxette you would be surprised how many CTers watch this site. I guess a few people chatting on a site debunking/making fun of CT's gets people pissed off and makes this site popular.

Hope he doesn't try "We're all peace-loving individuals but the world is mean to us".

Oh man...I am ready for the lulz.

Various accusations have been made about the movement due solely to this thread which I have created, expressing my beliefs alone,

I don't think he's grasping the fundamental issue here. This is not the first time someone has made a thread like this on the Zeitgeist forums, and it has also been tolerated by the moderators both in the past and now. Not only that, but this individual has made some rather poor choices founded upon a very poorly made movie and an ever more absurd "movement." As long as these erroneous world views, conspiratorial in nature and fundamentally divorced from reality, then this is going to happen repeatedly until someone carries through on their promises.

*Headdesk Headdesk Headdesk Headdesk Headdesk Headdesk Headdesk*

They really do not get that the words and shit they post on the forums matter. Oh right, except the forums aren't the movement.

Someone using the admin account posted in the thread.

Was he posting to tell people to stop promoting violent revolution? Nah. Was he posting to tell people that threads promoting violent revolution are a bad idea? Nah. Was he posting to tell people that violence goes against the beliefs of TZM? Nah.

He was posting to tell followers to flag James Kush's latest YouTube video. So its pretty obvious where the leadership's priorities lie.

Astonishing.

Kaiser is absolutely right. What one guy says about violence isn't as instructive as how the others react to it--and it is that reaction that's the problem.

I think this is a major milestone on the Zeitgeist Movement's road to extinction. Not as if Loughner and the Venus feud didn't already doom them, but this move toward violent rhetoric, which was already begun by Douglas Mallette last winter, pretty much destroys any chance that they will ever be viewed favorably by anyone. Mallette at least issued a half-hearted retraction of his statements, but I don't see anybody doing anything in this case which is much, much worse.

In 6 years of dealing with conspiracy theorists, I've never before reported a conspiracy theorist threat to law enforcement. I did that for the first time yesterday. This crosses the line, seriously, into criminal behavior.

I hope stp52x is happy with what he's done for his Movement.

They're trying to spin it as a lone nut voicing an opinion that the majority don't agree with. Unfortunately, that's not really the case. Its the same old mental gymnastics they've used in the past to distance themselves from the embarrassing first film. The movies aren't the movement, the forum isn't the movement, lone nuts voicing bloodlust isn't the movement, etc.

You sure about that?

Why is it that I would get banned for criticizing Merola, but you can post about violent revolution freely?

Just as democracy itself does not advocate violence; yet certain individuals, in certain contexts, driven by certain nationalist or patriotic fervors are driven to commit acts of violence in it's name. Am I mistaken?

You draw a false parallel. Within national frameworks that incorporate law, a responsible code of conduct codifies protection against violence which includes the protection against those who propose violence against innocent people. These people render themselves before the law for punishment. TZM has no such framework, has been built up on the basis of faulty logic and paranoid worldviews, and has taken no steps to mitigate these efforts undertaken by you and others. Oklahoma City was undertaken by a right-wing nut who viewed himself as defending his country- and if law enforcement had done nothing to punish him and work to prevent a repeat then they would have been complicit. That was clearly not the case. TZM does nothing as vitriolic rhetoric persists, and whatever the outcome the movement is likewise complicit in the actions engendered by what is posted on their forums.

The most it can do is remove a thread

That's the point, numbnuts. The moderators at TZM have, on many occasions, deleted threads and banned users who voiced criticism of the movement. But you post a bunch of crazy crap about wanting to engage in violent revolution and it stays open. We on the same page now?

fail to realize that the movement has absolutely no control over the thoughts and actions of its members.

This is an entirely flaccid argument. They have the ability to prevent the kind of vitriol you posted from being posted on their forums and enforcing a ban on people who expose other members to suggestions of violence. This is their fundamental failure, and something you fail to recognize properly

To expand your logic, in the case of Timothy McVeigh it would have been the duty of whatever right wing organization to which he belonged to hold him accountable and stop him.

Again you fail to excuse yourself with a poorly placed metaphor. Assuming McViegh even belonged to any organization, they are of course responsible morally if not legally for what he did. Any group that allows the espousal of violence to persist has fundamentally contributed to the actions that have taken place. When groups claim non-violence and someone acts violently, the group has a responsibility to examine its failures in allowing someone like that to not only be in their organization, but to ferment and disseminate their violent views. Simply saying a group is non-violent is not enough because if it cannot keep violence from stemming from within its memberships it has proved itself inefficient and guilty by proxy.

A psychopath disposed to violence will not be stopped by the removal of a single thread, that individual will find some other medium through which to justify his heinous acts.

And allowing a thread that promotes violence to remain up is better than removing it? What horribly irresponsible logic. You are attempting to assuage your guilt by claiming inevitability. The fact is, anyone who acts with your words in mind, should those words directly point towards violent acts, is immediately influenced by your words. You are responsible for such reckless rhetoric.

The number of places people can go to espouse violence and criminality should be reduced, not ignored- as you seem to be suggesting. Free speech allows people to speak their minds, not engender violence. Furthermore, deleting the thread would only cause an uproar among people incapable of understanding the very line being drawn. Again, you are attempting to remove guilt through a series of erroneous logical steps. If TZM chooses to leave that thread up and permit violent speech to persist, but then targets people who criticize the movements leader, then it retains full responsibility.

@stp52x

Despite your arguments, you've still failed to explain why your violent rhetoric had to be exposed before being deleted on the forums while people criticizing TZM get the banhammer without a second thought.

Everyone here knows exactly why that is.

Do you?

At least they took it down- finally. Who linked this thread over there?

@Kaiser Falkner

You raise many wonderful points. My retort was highly illogical, I had made that realization myself soon after having posted it. I see the flaws in the forum and agree with you. I don't understand upon what basis they choose to preserve these threads, perhaps they do not clearly recognize how a thread could motivate violence.

@Omni-Science

Because I was not advocating violence, I was speculating over the matter. Due merely to the fact that an individual debates the merits of Fascism or Nazism this does not imply that the individual supports it; perhaps an individual wants to clearly and definitively understand for what reason one opposes it.