Wednesday, August 17, 2005

For wintermute

Islamic terror bombings in Bangladesh.

Must have been a reaction to the American presence... Oh, sorry wrong country!

Well, maybe they just need to set down and have a dialog.



drummaster2001 said...

"Dhaka resident Jesin Zahir witnessed a blast near Jahangir Nagar university.

'It was a horrible experience. In the name of humanity, I ask all the extremist groups to please think twice before attempting this kind of coordinated crime.'"

they have no regard for humans, let alone themselves.

i just realized that some blogs (i.e. yours, H.V., Beaks, beamish) have this thing on top that says 'flag', yet some (i.e. N&R, outside the blogway) don't.

Warren said...

i just realized that some blogs (i.e. yours, H.V., Beaks, beamish) have this thing on top that says 'flag', yet some (i.e. N&R, outside the blogway) don't.

Its really a way for someone to cause you grief.

I don't believe that the blogger premium sites have the button. I just disreguard it. If I really found a blog that was that objectionable, I would be willing to do more than click a button to have something done about it.

Always On Watch said...

As The Beak points out, Islamism is a death culture. Can't reason with its followers.

Hey, if I use a different Blogger template, can I get rid of that flag on my site?

Warren said...

I looked into it a little further.

DM, Outside the Blogway, (now), has the button. It hasn't appeared at N&R yet but I imagine it will shortly.

AOW, the short answer is no.

Your template is actually what is known as a CSS, (a cascading style sheet). It is a sub-routine (program) that operates within the confines of a larger program (blogger), written in HTML (hypertext markup language).

The Blogger NavBar (navigation bar) and flag button are part of the larger Blogger scrip/program that our blogs reside within.

Its possible to write a script that would make the blogger NavBar invisible, but I am sure that blogger would see it as a violation of its terms of service.

Always On Watch said...

Thanks. I also looked into the matter but don't have the techie knowledge you do.

If blogs start being unlinked, I'm going to be pissed. Much of my material is controversial.

Always On Watch said...

For what it's worth, I just found this:

Warren said...

AOW, You are most welcome.

I could be wrong but I wouldn't worry about it overmuch. If blogger starts shutting down controversial sites, there won't be many left.

If they start shutting down conservative sites in mass, it would bring unfavorable publicity to blogger and goggle that I'm sure they wouldn't want.

There are other companies besides blogger waiting for the opportunity to provide the service.

However, at some point in time, I see the blogs becoming (mainly) a paid service. That is what happened to the message boards.

You will see it start to happen when we are required to pay to keep advertisement from appearing on our blogs.

drummaster2001 said...


"However, at some point in time, I see the blogs becoming (mainly) a paid service. That is what happened to the message boards.

You will see it start to happen when we are required to pay to keep advertisement from appearing on our blogs."

i hope you are wrong about that.

as far as the flagging, if blogger gets one complaint from some whackjob, they won't get rid of the blog right?

Wintermute said...

Islamic terror bombings in Bangladesh.

Must have been a reaction to the American presence... Oh, sorry wrong country!

I'm not saying that we cause all terrorism, only that we can intensify terrorism and provide material evidence for terrorists looking to recruit new terrorists by telling them how America has invaded and corrupted their lands by actually having a constant presence (and influence) in their lands, something that is right in their faces and easy to point out. We didn't exactly start terrorism (directly) but we can lessen it (indirectly) by being smart and not interveining overtly in their sovereign affairs. At the same time we can try to correct the global problems that inspire terrorism, so that the rules of the game are acceptable to both parties. The sooner we get this latter part underway the sooner we will see a drop in terrorist activities and membership. The sooner we defy the former part the sooner we will see a rise in terrorist activities and membership. Terrorism, and in the case of Iraq 'Insurgency', can intesify with an American presence, but this doesn't make this presence the direct cause.

Maybe an analogy will help here. Sometimes criminologists or documentary filmmakers will drive an expensive car into the ghetto, park it, lock it, and walk away. The spot has been chosen in advance, and cameras are set up to record the effects of this. Almost invariably within an hour or so, at most, a gang of hoodlums will come out and strip or steal the car. Sometimes, but not always, these people are prosecuted for their crime.

Now while the crew placing the car here are not responsible for the conditions in this neighborhood, they know full well what will happen if they leave their car in there. To prosecute these people afterwards is somewhat ethically objectionable, because the question is now raised as to what is actually causing this crime, and how close to entrapment this is.

So, in the same way that we can predict the actions of these potential criminals, so too can we predict the reactions of the Islamic world at trying to be modernized at gunpoint by a bunch of "infidels". They will likely get pissed, and the ranks of terrorist groups will likely increase, as will the activities of these groups. This does not mean that anyone who steals the car or takes to terrorism is not in the wrong, in the absolute sense, but it does mean that we were in some sense causing the commition of MORE crime/terrorism.

This doesn't mean that we are ourselves to blame for terrorism, that some american must be punished for our actions (for example), it just means that we have a way of preventing more terrorism/crime-namely by not oddupying Islamic nations/not driving an expensive car into a desperate neighborhood. While this does not fix the root of the problem, its a better solution than our present strategy (kill or imprison anyone we think might be a terrorist, and bomb and invade any country we think might be training terrorists) which will in the long run likely make things worse not better. Sending our army into Iraq was like driving a bunch of pimped out mucsle cars into the Hood. What did you think was going to happen?

It is true that there are actually people picking up on the opportunity to terrorize/steal a nice car, and that does make them terrorists/criminals, but if we don't want to be terrorized or have our cars stolen, then what are we to do but try and not provoke these attacks/crimes while possibly covertly (and with UN approval) hunting down any people who do actually commit/co-ordinate such attacks/crimes?

People have the right to think whatever they want, that's by our rules. What they aren't allowed to do is act on violent beliefs or thoughts, etc. People may hate America, but we can't-by our rules-punish them until they have attempted, planned, or succeeded in acting on these desires. Anything else would be uncivilized, a kind of pre-emptive conviction similar to the dystopian policing of Minority Report. This would be all the worse if we were actually baiting these potential killers/criminals.

Accordingly, anyone who might have some beefs with us should not be given a reason to act on their beefs, not because they have the right to use violence on us, but because they will if provoked. It's like dangling a naked woman in front of a sex addict and then charging him with sexual harrasment when he grabs her ass. Yes he shouldn't have done it, but should you have been waving naked women in front of him if you knew this would happen? Now what if he was a muslim and he slapped you for presenting him with such perversion? You knew he wouldn't like it, but you did it anyways.

Who's in the wrong? Why does it matter? We're both killing people. Can't we just do unto others like we're supposed to already and be done with it?

Warren said...

Not according to them.

The "Flag?" button is a means by which readers of Blog*Spot can help inform us about potentially questionable content, so we can prevent others from encountering such material by setting particular blogs as "unlisted." This means the blog won't be promoted on but will still be available on the web - we prefer to keep in mind that one person's vulgarity is another's poetry. Or something like that.

For more serious cases, such as spam blogs or sites engaging in illegal activity, we will continue to enforce our existing policies (removing content and deleting accounts when necessary).
Here's How It Works

When a person visiting a blog clicks the "Flag?" button in the Blogger Navbar, it means they believe the content of the blog may be potentially offensive or illegal. We track the number of times a blog has been flagged as objectionable and use this information to determine what action is needed. This feature allows the blogging community as a whole to identify content they deem objectionable. Have you read The Wisdom of Crowds? It's sort of like that.
Special Case for Hate Speech

When the community has voted and hate speech is identified on Blog*Spot, Google may exercise its right to place a Content Warning page in front of the blog and set it to "unlisted."

Unlisting could actually lead to more "hits", although you might have to "self promote". I could see myself setting up a link page with unlisted blogs, just out of perversity. I believe that the big time blogers would even help promote it.

drummaster2001 said...


"Unlisting could actually lead to more 'hits'"

lol, yet so true. the forbidden fruit always lures the people in.

Esther said...

So how did I earn my flag? I might go press the flag at the spammer who hit my site. Grrr...

Warren said...

You are not flagged unless someone sees something different than I do.

I only see the flag button which will be on every blog eventually. If you are flagged , a disclaimer type page is supposed to appear that says your blog may contain objectionable material.

It is confusing, and your post points out one of the many problems with this whole flag business.

I imagine that 167 and his nutso crew will flag Beaks blog. But then again, they are so stupid that I doubt they will figure out how. 167 said, several months ago, that he had complained about Beaks blog and asked that it be deleted.

Always On Watch said...

I think that every blog got a flag icon, once anything was published.

The thought police have arrived to the blogosphere.