"Markie was right to call you on this, and for complaining that other posters didn't."

I've already addressed the former part, but now I'd like to addressed the supposed obligation to publicly denounce and the presumption that those who don't post on a topic are, by not posting, making a definitive statement.

Both of these views are paranoid in the extreme.

It is the case on many posting topics that the general population can neither see the point in endless hostile debate nor chooses to continue reading. Several have declared so for either entire topics or for particular posters.

In the long run many of these subtopics end up with maybe 8 folks tops posting and only four or five doing a majority of the back-and-forth.

Assuming that a vociferous few represent the majority is erroneous at best. It then skews heavily towards extreme ends of the political spectrum and creates a false sense of consensus that general posting shows is not true.

When tracking overall statements, GC is generally pro-choice. But most of these folks hold incrementalist positions not far from the anti-contact crowd when it comes to shifting the AoC or creating multiple AoCs, rather than removing them. This has always seemed to be the case, but fewer are inclined to keep up with and post to threads which run off the edge of the page.

Worse still than assuming that those who post most vigorously hold the most common views is the assumption that silence equals an endorsement for or against a view. This Fallwellian view that a silent majority secretly have voiced an opinion is very solipsistic indeed.

Many very effective posters can advocate what they believe in and endorse without having to publicly declare others to be debased monsters as the denouncers would require. Further, we already know that many antis are actually not FOR anything, they simply feed on the power that comes with hate and wish to stir-up hate in order to feel supported.

And we know that wallowing in hate and in excuses for hate skews the worldview. The more one watches Faux News the further one is removed from the factual accounts of what Ayles' people are talking about. Even the truly objective news is skewed heavily towards stories of extreme negativity and fear; and creates an unrealistic assessment of actual threats away from the more common and likely to cause harm and towards the newsworthy yet statistically nonrepresentative.

Some believe that the heart of GL lies in the willingness to denounce others who they don't know over rumours and allegations from scaremongering media. While most realize that the armchair warrior is "proving" their bona fides without actually having to love any one or anything.

GC used to be dominated by a few posters trolling the media looking for child-rapers to post about so that they could declare how they would kill them if they could. Failure to join in the blood-lust was seen as an endorsement of child rape.

We largely then went through a spell where identifying with rapists to the point of thinking about girls solely as rape victims was no longer the dominant tone.

But even those of us who chose to change the tone by taking up Eeyore's challenge to dig up the good news and who denounced the bloodlust didn't spend any time telling the silent majority that they were morally obliged to join in and comment or be labeled as having taken a stance already.

Most of the pro-choice know that they aren't speaking on behalf of some imagined vast majority. And those whose pro-choice views call for a radical rethinking understand that they are radicals even among their fellow Pedos. Assuming from a vociferous few that their views speak for the majority and require public castigation so that they don't tarnish the majority is just nonsensical.

If we allow the assumption that these few extreme debaters truly do represent the silent majority then we should also allow their other views to do the same. Do we really assume that if a public stance isn't taken "against" that the majority of GCers are Muslim Philosophy Majors who oppose the Regulatory State.

Heck, since Dissy is known ( when not distracted by other duties ) for writing the longest "DISSertations" and with greatest frequency I think its safe to say that every GCer is a Doctrinaire Marxist Parapsychologist Comic Book collecting Wiccan. And that the general failure of almost all GCers to denounce or discuss Wicca is proof that all Pedos are secretly Wiccan.

If we have an image issue with the public that we need to combat it is not any of the images that the "Virtuous" fear might tarnish us should our quibbles be publicly known. We are not feared because of economic stances. We are feared over the very image the virtuous raise up publicly in order to garner media attention.

Now strangely enough Markaba's constant sentiment against religion represents the greatest political non-starter known in the USA. If he continues to publicly castigate the religious then he represents a threat far more politically consequential than any stance on policing or regulation.

He is entitled to his views as a poster. But if he believes in a need for the "movement" to redeem its public image by a massive round of enforced auto-critiques, some of his views need to go or be publicly castigated lest they be seen as the majority view. That is, if you believe that denouncing others is a moral obligation upon all.

Dante