Controversial topics are now against the rules...

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think it is inappropriate. I think it is remarkably similar to Swift's modest proposal; that is it proposes something almost illegal/shocking/definitely horrific, in order to expose the corrupt use of power.

I think this article ( below ) expresses it well, ( I don't know if it was already posted in the original thread, because I barely had time to look at it before it disappeared ), and helps to explain why I think it is not inappropriate. I hope you understand that my quoting it is directly in answer to your question.

I'm still thinking about the idea, but it certainly seems to have the USA establishment worried.

As an aspie homeschooling mother watching developments in UK homeschooling law, which propose that social services inspectors should have the right to enter any homeschooling family's home and speak to the children without their parents present, I am very interested in the current battle between "governmental law and order" which is ever more pervasive, and the "little guy", the "odd guy", the aspie mother for instance who might have trouble convincing the authorities that their child is not neglected, etc. Bell's idea is a "mental" attack on the complacency of increasingly invasive and non-accountable governments.
[/quote]

PS. I have becoming increasingly afraid of the law, of government intervention in my life. And as an unemployed homeschooling aspie mother I don't feel very safe. I am interested in, and welcome, ideas which alarm the powers that be, and expose how corrupt and uncontrolled by the population they are. The news is not good for people who group together for any reason, who think differently, are different. And Bell's idea is like a kind of online election which actually gives individual people a weird kind of clout. Like votes used to be.

.

There is quite a bit of distance between a pool that encourages assassination and efforts to make public officials accountable. Feel free to discuss most of what lies on that road, but when you get to the idea of using assassination as the wedge, I cannot in any way agree to even a discussion of it.

Your post came in while I was editing in my intention to lock. I will do so as soon as feasible. The topic of Assassination Politics is off the table, and continuing to bring it up will violate the WP rule of repeating removed threads. Thank you for letting me know just how much legal risk is associated with the topic.