A police officer in uniform, standing at your driver's-side window, asking you to please step out of the vehicle, is an authority figure. An off-duty cop, posting opinions unrelated to any official capacity, in a private social media channel, is no more authoritative than any other citizen doing any similar thing.
Given that this
police officer ex-police officer plus another officer who only "liked" it were fired for this post and the publicity it brought his department, I don't think your assessment of how it was related to his official capacity is shared by his office, or by many other people in general.
But your argument does raise questions about official figures speaking intemperately in general, which is a subject that you seem somewhat confused about.
I'm rubber, you're glue? Is this elementary school level taunting the best you can do? Recall, you are the one who can't tell the difference between an anonymous commenter on an obscure forum and an authority figure posting as himself on Facebook.
The incitements to violence in fuelair's posts were tacitly accepted by the membership and staff here. While objections to his obscenities were raised from time to time, no objections to his incitement were ever raised.
To remind you, you claimed that people were excusing fuelair's posts. This is the claim I called false. This is the claim you could support, if it were true. Your new claim, that nobody objected to his incitement, is probably just as false. Even if nobody ever objected, however, that is not the same as excusing them, or even accepting them, tacitly or otherwise. You are well aware that a lot of us (myself included) had fuelair on ignore, which means (as apparently this must be explained to you) that we did not see fuelair's posts. Not seeing something is not the same as excusing it, accepting it, or agreeing with it. In fact, I rather doubt anyone here has people they often agree with on ignore.
But here's something that would clear up some of my confusion right away: Do you think fuelair's violent ideations here were incitements to violence?
I rather doubt any answer I can give would clear up feigned confusion. If this confusion is genuine, I will probably have to work a while at distilling a discussion down to such a simple level. While I am doing that, perhaps you could ruminate on how, not seeing fuelair's posts, I would be able to form an opinion on them?
I accept your offer. But let's do this: First, address my other points - especially answering my question above, and then let's circle back and start the walkthrough of the mistakes I've made on this point. Fair?
Ah, yes, JoeMorgue loves this particular debate tactic you guys use.
