Sign in to follow this  
Shootist Jeff

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

"you can just negligently leave one in the back of your unlocked car outside a gun shop"

Why work that hard, just go to a gun show.  When I worked the shows, it was common knowledge who was selling autosears or reactivated grenades under the table (he was easy to spot by the fragment scars,the camo turban and two remaining fingers on his hand).

If you were really a dealer, you know that getting a licensed NFA weapon isn't a "just go to a gun show" thing.

And you probably should have frequented a better class of show, since I never saw anything remotely like what you describe at any around here.

5 hours ago, mad said:

They don't seem to be in Florida........ you can just negligently leave one in the back of your unlocked car outside a gun shop and let it be stolen with no comeback!:wacko:

The rules about guns like his are so complex that the actual owner is often a trust, not an individual. Look up NFA Trusts. Yeah, there are a few rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're either blind or disingenuous to suggest there wasn't an under the table market at a lot of these shows. I worked shows in 4 states and saw a big chunk of the same people; they're not going to put out a sign "Buy your illegal stuff here! Cash only!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"And as much as you single out the GOP in this,"

I single them out as, since the Southern Strategy, the right wing extremists have been increasingly folded into the GOP core. Mississippi just elected a Senator that went to a segregated school, sent her daughter to a similar one, spoke of disenfranchisement and public hanging.   Frankly, that sounds like Jim Crow South. The GOP gives the impression that they have made their extremists mainstream, what do you suggest Dem's do in the face of this trend? Do you really think that the Kansas Somali bombers would have listened to a Democrat? Alex Fields? Alex Jones? Mitch McConnell? Newt Gingrich?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

And you probably should have frequented a better class of show, since I never saw anything remotely like what you describe at any around here.

maybe you are just stupid and clueless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

If you were really a dealer, you know that getting a licensed NFA weapon isn't a "just go to a gun show" thing.

And you probably should have frequented a better class of show, since I never saw anything remotely like what you describe at any around here.

The rules about guns like his are so complex that the actual owner is often a trust, not an individual. Look up NFA Trusts. Yeah, there are a few rules.

I assume as he was buying it he would be part of the syndicate, or an authorised and trustworthy representative?  Either way, Still doesn’t excuse him for being a useless, irresponsible cunt. 

There is something seriously fucked that he isn’t being prosecuted for this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

You're either blind or disingenuous to suggest there wasn't an under the table market at a lot of these shows. I worked shows in 4 states and saw a big chunk of the same people; they're not going to put out a sign "Buy your illegal stuff here! Cash only!"

Grenade dealers with fragment scars? I'm not quite that blind and don't think there's really an active grenade market anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, learningJ24 said:

The GOP gives the impression that they have made their extremists mainstream, what do you suggest Dem's do in the face of this trend?

Ones with a sense of irony do this:

On 11/4/2018 at 6:52 PM, dogballs Tom said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still haven't seen anyone fall to the ground bleeding from reading a hateful post on Facebook. Not quite the same when it comes to weapons. The fact you can ignore a well-targeted word but not a well-targeted bullet makes the two incomparable the way the gun nutters are trying here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, VOA said:

I’ve seen marriages destroyed and careers crushed. I’ve heard stories of pretty extreme violence that became life changing. There was even a movie made about a 16 yo girl in the states that had her beating posted to social media and the harm it caused to all parties involved 

Yeah, when you post pics of the bar girls, the missus can get upset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2018 at 4:31 AM, mad said:

There is something seriously fucked that he isn’t being prosecuted for this. 

Totally agree.  This is what I've been saying for a long time.  There ARE laws on the books that would allow for prosecution.  So you (collective you) can't blame the gunz lobby for blocking it.  Its an enforcement issue.  Not a gun issue.  If we can't even enforce relatively simple rules like this, does anyone think that Banning guns is going to work?  Like all the other prohibitions we've tried????

I've said it loud and clear here.  As a gun owner, I WANT irresponsible gun owners prosecuted to the max if they do something stupid like leave a loaded gun out where a child can get to it and hurt someone.  I WANT mentally ill or demonstrated violent people's gunz taken away from them with Red Flag laws (GVROs) while being evaluated for their danger to society.  I WANT gangbangers who get caught with illegal gunz to stay in jail for a really long time.  

Most of the recent mass shootings all could have and should have been preventable with the GVROs.  They were known to be violent and unstable.  The parkland shooter, the recent Cali nightclub shooter, the jewish synagogue shitbag, the TX church shooter, etc.  All had known violent or mentally unstable histories and all could have been stopped if the laws on the books had been followed and pursued. 

I posted a thread recently where a Red Flag law did actually work in an incident in CT where a kid posted a note on social media about shooting up his former school, bought the guns, was seen scoping out the school, wrote notes to GF's saying he was about to do it.  He was arrested and charged and he admitted he was planning it and his gunz were taken away.  But then his free speech rights trumped public safety and he was acquitted of all charges and is free to try it again.  How fucked up is that????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Totally agree.  This is what I've been saying for a long time.  There ARE laws on the books that would allow for prosecution.  So you (collective you) can't blame the gunz lobby for blocking it.  Its an enforcement issue.  Not a gun issue. 

Just how fucking stupid do you think everyone here is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2018 at 7:07 AM, Bent Sailor said:

Still haven't seen anyone fall to the ground bleeding from reading a hateful post on Facebook. Not quite the same when it comes to weapons. The fact you can ignore a well-targeted word but not a well-targeted bullet makes the two incomparable the way the gun nutters are trying here.

Then you're either blind or being deliberately obtuse (I'm going with the latter).  Because there are LOTs of dead bodies in chicago and other inner cities as a direct result of hateful posts on social media.  Gangs routinely use social media to both taunt other gangs and then gangs retaliate for being "dissed" on line.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Just how fucking stupid do you think everyone here is?

I think you and some others are actually pretty fucking stupid.  Next question......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think you and some others are actually pretty fucking stupid.  Next question......

That's because you are fucking asshole that thinks their doesn't stink and has gotten a pass from a bunch of conservatives here, you senile polyp on the colon of camel.

Genius Jeff logic:

 local non-prosecution of illegals  = all the democrats fault.

local non-prosecution of gun offenses = totally organic, nothing to do with gun lobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That's because you are fucking asshole that thinks their doesn't stink and has gotten a pass from a bunch of conservatives here, you senile polyp on the colon of camel.

Genius Jeff logic:

 local non-prosecution of illegals  = all the democrats fault.

local non-prosecution of gun offenses = totally organic, nothing to do with gun lobby.

Well since local non-prosecution of illegals happens mostly or exclusively in dRAT controlled "sanctuary cities", I would say the logic is pretty sound.   I am also not aware of any specific measures or policies by the NRA that has blocked local prosecutions of gun offenses.  In fact I think the NRA has been pretty vocal about enforcing existing laws rather than constantly adding news ones that will also not be enforced and only the law abiding will suffer.  As usual.

So yeah, my logic is pretty sound all around.  I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

Speaking of violent behavior..... As an aside, have you taken my advice to see your doctor about getting on a script for some bi-polar meds?  I hear there are some really good drugs out there that might change your life.  You seem very angry.  Do you own any gunz?  As a gun owner I'm concerned for your and others safety.  Maybe you should hand them over to a trusted family member or LEO for a while.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well since local non-prosecution of illegals happens mostly or exclusively in dRAT controlled "sanctuary cities", I would say the logic is pretty sound.   I am also not aware of any specific measures or policies by the NRA that has blocked local prosecutions of gun offenses.  In fact I think the NRA has been pretty vocal about enforcing existing laws rather than constantly adding news ones that will also not be enforced and only the law abiding will suffer.  As usual.

So yeah, my logic is pretty sound all around.  I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

Speaking of violent behavior..... As an aside, have you taken my advice to see your doctor about getting on a script for some bi-polar meds?  I hear there are some really good drugs out there that might change your life.  You seem very angry.  Do you own any gunz?  As a gun owner I'm concerned for your and others safety.  Maybe you should hand them over to a trusted family member or LEO for a while.  Just saying.

to fools like you and AGITC this passes for reasonable discourse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2018 at 12:09 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Heard a really interesting article on the radio recently discussing online hate speech and how it seems to be preceding many mass murder events.

What to do about it???

Hmmmm.... deal with a threat that often leads to dead people by understanding and confronting the hate rather than take away the tools they use to perpetuate that hate????  Sounds radical.  Isn't prohibition always the answer?  Why don't we just prohibit social media platforms so these people can't spread their hate or become radicalized themselves from other's hate speech???

Without wading through two pages of gun strokers straining at gnats...

 

In effect, if you say hateful things around me, I can choose to react. I can respond, I can ignore it. Some twisted idiots decide to go shoot up a school or a church or a nightclub.

But people have a choice on how to respond to the WORDS, even though the words may be harmful the do not actually, specifically cause harm by their utterance. The words may be part of a larger effect that leads to violence, but they are not the actual violence, and people can act or not act accordingly.

 

On the other hand, if you shot me with a gun there is pretty much fuck-all I can do about it now, is there? What are my options? Bleed? Not bleed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

The words may be part of a larger effect that leads to violence,

This is why...

On 11/29/2018 at 7:28 AM, dogballs Tom said:

When does Social media hate speech become a real Threat???

When it prompts the end of Section 230.


But as long as trying to prevent stupid bans on our squirrel shooters can only be seen as

 

4 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

gun strokers straining at gnats...

We'll still see those stupid bans proposed and promoted. BJ won't comment on them one way or the other, of course. Other than to denounce those who do have an opinion on stupid squirrel shooter bans, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 12:18 AM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

to fools like you and AGITC this passes for reasonable discourse.

Did he call you a "fucking asshole" at any point during his replies?  He's stating his opinion, supporting that with his observations, so, yeah - that's reasonable discourse. 

You seem to have a problem with a couple of us, and have decided to be caustic and derisive in your responses to those you deem as "the problem".    I don't have any problem with you disagreeing, or having different interpretations of things than I do - I have a problem with your constant and I think unwarranted hatefulness.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 12:36 AM, B.J. Porter said:

Without wading through two pages of gun strokers straining at gnats...

 

In effect, if you say hateful things around me, I can choose to react. I can respond, I can ignore it. Some twisted idiots decide to go shoot up a school or a church or a nightclub.

But people have a choice on how to respond to the WORDS, even though the words may be harmful the do not actually, specifically cause harm by their utterance. The words may be part of a larger effect that leads to violence, but they are not the actual violence, and people can act or not act accordingly.

 

On the other hand, if you shot me with a gun there is pretty much fuck-all I can do about it now, is there? What are my options? Bleed? Not bleed?

That's an interesting point, BJ.  It makes me wonder - do you think that sacrificing the 2nd to "preserve the rest" is the way forward? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 3:22 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Then you're either blind or being deliberately obtuse (I'm going with the latter).  Because there are LOTs of dead bodies in chicago and other inner cities as a direct result of hateful posts on social media.  Gangs routinely use social media to both taunt other gangs and then gangs retaliate for being "dissed" on line.  

I'm neither blind nor obtuse. None of those dead bodies had to coroners conclude they died from a fatal dose of social media. There will be coroner's reports detailing how bullet wound(s) received were fatal however. Gangs that retaliate with social media only don't kill anyone. Gangs that pick up their guns do. No amount of spin changes that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's an interesting point, BJ.  It makes me wonder - do you think that sacrificing the 2nd to "preserve the rest" is the way forward? 

Morally speaking, I do find some legal rights more important than others. Even the courts are forced to concede a ranking case-by-case when they have to weigh up one right vs another (as they can & do come into conflict). If one can accept that not all legal rights are morally equal, it makes sense to give precedence to more important rights. Being able to own a specific form of lethal tool (but not others) is not a right I consider morally equivalent to the rights of free speech, due process, etc.

Outside the gun debate, it's generally not even considered worth debating. You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre - the rights of other people not to be stomped to death in a panic override your right to free speech. Of course, bring up guns and suddenly you cannot give an inch on any right or they all come crashing down. It's fucking ridiculous, but that's where US thinking on guns has gotten to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

That's an interesting point, BJ.  It makes me wonder - do you think that sacrificing the 2nd to "preserve the rest" is the way forward? 

I think a more intelligent interpretation of the 2nd would go a long way towards fixing the problem.

Maybe focus more on "well regulated" and less on "shall not infringe", or at least somehow connect or relate the two.

But I don't want to same anymore, else Gun-stroker Tom is going to come out here and start yammering about Heller and jurisprudence how how dare I think that was a fucking idiotic interpretation of the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Did he call you a "fucking asshole" at any point during his replies?  He's stating his opinion, supporting that with his observations, so, yeah - that's reasonable discourse. 

so it's ok for him to have caustic mocking replies as long as he doesn't included profanity? I ask for information, and it's ok for Jeff to shit on me as part of "reasonable discourse"? I got a problem with the double standard you actively enforce, and your refusal to acknowledge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

I think a more intelligent interpretation of the 2nd would go a long way towards fixing the problem.

Maybe focus more on "well regulated" and less on "shall not infringe", or at least somehow connect or relate the two.

But I don't want to same anymore, else Gun-stroker Tom is going to come out here and start yammering about Heller and jurisprudence how how dare I think that was a fucking idiotic interpretation of the law.

I think an objective observer would see the disruptive "sealion" behavior you decry here and here and here but would have trouble finding such examples from me. So your problem would seem to be with the point of view, not the (imagined) behavior. It's OK if you're grabby.

People who are not so shy about the (regulations, infringements) they wish to enact propose them in legislatures or as constitutional amendments. They're rarely overturned as unconstitutional and even if badlat is $ucce$$ful in his $ecret $pending campaign to eradicate the second amendment, I would still think that banning our squirrel shooters is a stupid idea. Even when enacted, as in places like Canada, it seems to only result in thousands of new felons in possession joking on forums about "boating accidents" that happened to their banned property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, B.J. Porter said:

I think a more intelligent interpretation of the 2nd would go a long way towards fixing the problem.

Maybe focus more on "well regulated" and less on "shall not infringe", or at least somehow connect or relate the two.

But I don't want to same anymore, else Gun-stroker Tom is going to come out here and start yammering about Heller and jurisprudence how how dare I think that was a fucking idiotic interpretation of the law.

I think that that's fair assessment - appreciate your thoughts.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Morally speaking, I do find some legal rights more important than others. Even the courts are forced to concede a ranking case-by-case when they have to weigh up one right vs another (as they can & do come into conflict). If one can accept that not all legal rights are morally equal, it makes sense to give precedence to more important rights. Being able to own a specific form of lethal tool (but not others) is not a right I consider morally equivalent to the rights of free speech, due process, etc.

Outside the gun debate, it's generally not even considered worth debating. You can't shout fire in a crowded theatre - the rights of other people not to be stomped to death in a panic override your right to free speech. Of course, bring up guns and suddenly you cannot give an inch on any right or they all come crashing down. It's fucking ridiculous, but that's where US thinking on guns has gotten to. 

That perspective has come about over a long period of time in which there have and continue to be people in positions of influence who are indeed actively trying to outlaw the right to keep and bear arms.   I've said before, and will say again, that most of us who want to protect the 2nd aren't at all opposed to changes in laws that work to keep firearms out of the hands of people who's behavior warrants that restriction.  I've suggested many myself.   If we're willing to infringe upon one enumerated right in the interest of reducing violence, then I also think that other infringements should  be on the table as well.  I think that the biggest, cheapest benefit would come from modifications to the 4th.  After all - if you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about? 

The issue for me is those who say that any restriction is just another step to eradication, and unless a restriction comes with protection from unintended infringement?  It *is* a slippery slope, and that is the source of the hesitation to accept any infringement.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

so it's ok for him to have caustic mocking replies as long as he doesn't included profanity? I ask for information, and it's ok for Jeff to shit on me as part of "reasonable discourse"? I got a problem with the double standard you actively enforce, and your refusal to acknowledge it.

Ya know what?  you're right - there's no difference whatsoever in someone questioning whether someone's off their meds after they make a stupid comment and suggesting that they're racist nazis because they have a different interpretation of a situation.  Have at it - I'll say no more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Ya know what?  you're right - there's no difference whatsoever in someone questioning whether someone's off their meds after they make a stupid comment and suggesting that they're racist nazis because they have a different interpretation of a situation.  Have at it - I'll say no more. 

I'm well aware to you and Jeffreaux "stupid comments" are ones that counter or challenge your orthodoxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 I've said before, and will say again, that most of us who want to protect the 2nd aren't at all opposed to changes in laws that work to keep firearms out of the hands of people who's behavior warrants that restriction

And yet, and yet, nothing ever happens. And you can never agree on who's behavior or what behavior merits restrictions on ownership. So nothing ever changes. Almost like this position is bullshit designed never to be implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'm well aware to you and Jeffreaux "stupid comments" are ones that counter or challenge your orthodoxy.

Of course

 

On 12/1/2018 at 12:08 AM, Shootist Jeff said:
On 11/30/2018 at 11:38 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

That's because you are fucking asshole that thinks their doesn't stink and has gotten a pass from a bunch of conservatives here, you senile polyp on the colon of camel.

Genius Jeff logic:

 local non-prosecution of illegals  = all the democrats fault.

local non-prosecution of gun offenses = totally organic, nothing to do with gun lobby.

Well since local non-prosecution of illegals happens mostly or exclusively in dRAT controlled "sanctuary cities", I would say the logic is pretty sound.   I am also not aware of any specific measures or policies by the NRA that has blocked local prosecutions of gun offenses.  In fact I think the NRA has been pretty vocal about enforcing existing laws rather than constantly adding news ones that will also not be enforced and only the law abiding will suffer.  As usual.

So yeah, my logic is pretty sound all around.  I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

Speaking of violent behavior..... As an aside, have you taken my advice to see your doctor about getting on a script for some bi-polar meds?  I hear there are some really good drugs out there that might change your life.  You seem very angry.  Do you own any gunz?  As a gun owner I'm concerned for your and others safety.  Maybe you should hand them over to a trusted family member or LEO for a while.  Just saying.

Absolutely the same thing..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

And yet, and yet, nothing ever happens. And you can never agree on who's behavior or what behavior merits restrictions on ownership. So nothing ever changes. Almost like this position is bullshit designed never to be implemented.

I'll invite you to read any of my comments on the matter, and then tell me what "I can't agree to".  I've been very clear - shouldn't be too hard for you to find something to prove me wrong. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things Chesapeake. One on the topic your discussing with me, the other on the one you're dismissing with Jiblets.

On the first, you seem to base your view on the idea that all legal rights are morally equal. That isn't a position I hold and, I think if you think about it rather than dodge the issue, you'll find you agree with me there. You might not want to admit that, but I find it hard that you consider every right equal morally because they are both enshrined in law. Once you accept that point, you'll see why I don't have any problem whatsoever with putting all the rights on the table when looking at which to cut in order to have 4x less homicide... and why guns will still always be the first one cut. Morally speaking, it's become a half measure that no longer makes capable what it was meant to, is not applied in the way it was meant to be, has been made redundant with the USA's standing military, and will be the one that least affects the freedoms we expect from a democratic country. 

Secondly, defending Jeff is (once again) showing your political bias. Because, as a man who has had to take care of family with mental illness, yeah - accusing someone of being bipolar, off their meds, and a risk to the safety of others is just as insulting as calling someone a racist nazi. At least as far as determining whether either fits into the definition "reasonable discourse". Neither are reasonable and you've seen that Jeff escalates the insults until he gets the reaction he wants. That someone is easily triggered doesn't make Jeff reasonable. It merely means he gets the reaction he wanted before needing to escalate to insults about the pleasure his wife gets from bikies gang-raping her. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but he started it first!  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 4:47 AM, dogballs Tom said:
On 12/3/2018 at 6:34 PM, B.J. Porter said:

I think a more intelligent interpretation of the 2nd would go a long way towards fixing the problem.

Maybe focus more on "well regulated" and less on "shall not infringe", or at least somehow connect or relate the two.

But I don't want to same anymore, else Gun-stroker Tom is going to come out here and start yammering about Heller and jurisprudence how how dare I think that was a fucking idiotic interpretation of the law.

I think an objective observer would see the disruptive "sealion" behavior you decry here and here and here but would have trouble finding such examples from me. So your problem would seem to be with the point of view, not the (imagined) behavior. It's OK if you're grabby. 

People who are not so shy about the (regulations, infringements) they wish to enact propose them in legislatures or as constitutional amendments. They're rarely overturned as unconstitutional and even if badlat is $ucce$$ful in his $ecret $pending campaign to eradicate the second amendment, I would still think that banning our squirrel shooters is a stupid idea. Even when enacted, as in places like Canada, it seems to only result in thousands of new felons in possession joking on forums about "boating accidents" that happened to their banned property.

A gun-obsessed sealion attempted to disrupt thread on drugs and gays yesterday. As is typical, twice.

And the people who SAY they have a problem with that kind of behavior will once again demonstrate through inaction that they have some other problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Two things Chesapeake. One on the topic your discussing with me, the other on the one you're dismissing with Jiblets.

On the first, you seem to base your view on the idea that all legal rights are morally equal. That isn't a position I hold and, I think if you think about it rather than dodge the issue, you'll find you agree with me there. You might not want to admit that, but I find it hard that you consider every right equal morally because they are both enshrined in law. Once you accept that point, you'll see why I don't have any problem whatsoever with putting all the rights on the table when looking at which to cut in order to have 4x less homicide... and why guns will still always be the first one cut. Morally speaking, it's become a half measure that no longer makes capable what it was meant to, is not applied in the way it was meant to be, has been made redundant with the USA's standing military, and will be the one that least affects the freedoms we expect from a democratic country. 

Secondly, defending Jeff is (once again) showing your political bias. Because, as a man who has had to take care of family with mental illness, yeah - accusing someone of being bipolar, off their meds, and a risk to the safety of others is just as insulting as calling someone a racist nazi. At least as far as determining whether either fits into the definition "reasonable discourse". Neither are reasonable and you've seen that Jeff escalates the insults until he gets the reaction he wants. That someone is easily triggered doesn't make Jeff reasonable. It merely means he gets the reaction he wanted before needing to escalate to insults about the pleasure his wife gets from bikies gang-raping her. 

Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective.  I can accept both. To the 1st?  We're going to have to agree to disagree - I find that the premise that it's appropriate to ONLY infringe on the 2nd in an attempt to reduce the instances of violence fails to address any causality. Instead of focusing on the causes that would reduce the incidents of violence, that perspective focuses on reducing the magnitude of violence experienced in some incidents.

To the second - I appreciate your perspective, but would question whether or not your circumstances make you a bit more sensitive to the topic than folks who aren't dealing with mental illness.  I take a question like that to mean - "you're capable of more coherent thought/logical behavior, WTF is wrong to make you act like this?" .   Is it the nicest way possible to ask the question?  Nope - but, I do consider that to be less offensive than making a baseless claim that someone is a racist nazi.  

We all have different ideas about what's OK/not - and I do appreciate you sharing the reasons behind your thoughts.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I do consider that to be less offensive than making a baseless claim that someone is a racist nazi.  

so he's not a racist nazi, he just supports the rights of ethnically cleansed states to halt immigration to "keep demographics the same".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Thanks for taking the time to share your perspective.  I can accept both. To the 1st?  We're going to have to agree to disagree - I find that the premise that it's appropriate to ONLY infringe on the 2nd in an attempt to reduce the instances of violence fails to address any causality. Instead of focusing on the causes that would reduce the incidents of violence, that perspective focuses on reducing the magnitude of violence experienced in some incidents.

I have no problems with infringing on other rights if it is required to address causality. I don't think you've actually made that argument though. For example, the only other right you have argued worthy of taking the second's place is the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Which has nothing to do with the causes of violence. Which of the rights do you see being the cause of violence amongst humanity?

 

7 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 To the second - I appreciate your perspective, but would question whether or not your circumstances make you a bit more sensitive to the topic than folks who aren't dealing with mental illness.  I take a question like that to mean - "you're capable of more coherent thought/logical behavior, WTF is wrong to make you act like this?" .   Is it the nicest way possible to ask the question?  Nope - but, I do consider that to be less offensive than making a baseless claim that someone is a racist nazi. 

Perhaps coming from you, it would be believable you meant something like that. Unlikely, but possible.

It wasn't from you though, it came from Jeff. You know what he's like, how he likes to provoke, and how low he's willing to go to get a reaction if he can't get it from things you consider "less offensive", like questioning someone's sanity and whether or not it's safe for them to have a gun. Is it less offensive to accuse someone of having no grip on sanity and a likely suicide/murderer if left with a gun? I don't think so, but even it is, it is not "reasonable discourse". When you say otherwise to defend "your side" of the debate, you undermine any of your earlier calls for "both sides need to change"... because, when it comes down to specifics, you're only really calling for the "other side" to make changes. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2018 at 2:37 PM, Bent Sailor said:

Which of the rights do you see being the cause of violence amongst humanity?

None of them are causal.  Not even the 2nd.  THAT is the entire fucking point!!!  Gunz do not cause violence.

But they ARE all enablers.  The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th all enable people to commit acts of violence that would otherwise be very difficult if those rights did not exist in our society.  

So what Chessie and I are saying is that focusing on only one of those enabling rights to the exclusion of all the others is a losing proposition if your true goal is violence reduction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

None of them are causal.  Not even the 2nd.  THAT is the entire fucking point!!!  Gunz do not cause violence.

But they ARE all enablers.  The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th all enable people to commit acts of violence that would otherwise be very difficult if those rights did not exist in our society.  

So what Chessie and I are saying is that focusing on only one of those enabling rights to the exclusion of all the others is a losing proposition if your true goal is violence reduction.  

Breathable air enables violence, I see Trump is trying to get rid of that first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

None of them are causal.  Not even the 2nd.  THAT is the entire fucking point!!!  Gunz do not cause violence.

Never said they did. Perhaps read the post I was replying to and you'll see why I asked the question. Or you could keep jumping in on conversations you're not really interested in to make another irrelevant rant if you like. One earns you respect, the other makes you look like you're trying to steal Tom's misrepresentation schtick. 

 

21 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But they ARE all enablers.  The 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th all enable people to commit acts of violence that would otherwise be very difficult if those rights did not exist in our society. 

Free speech doesn't enable violence. Violence can and does exist without free speech. Guns enable a specific form violence as assault with a firearm would not exist without the firearm. Your apples don't go well with oranges, no matter how much you want them to. 

 

21 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

So what Chessie and I are saying is that focusing on only one of those enabling rights to the exclusion of all the others is a losing proposition if your true goal is violence reduction.  

I've already stated I'm happy to see them all on the table for review. Don't see what you're whining for. Seriously, leave the "I'm so misunderstood" thing for Tom. He needs to keep something for himself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:
On 12/7/2018 at 7:18 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

None of them are causal.  Not even the 2nd.  THAT is the entire fucking point!!!  Gunz do not cause violence.

Never said they did. Perhaps read the post I was replying to and you'll see why I asked the question.

Uhhh, actually you did.  Here:

On 12/5/2018 at 2:37 PM, Bent Sailor said:

I have no problems with infringing on other rights if it is required to address causality. I don't think you've actually made that argument though. For example, the only other right you have argued worthy of taking the second's place is the right against unreasonable search and seizure. Which has nothing to do with the causes of violence. Which of the rights do you see being the cause of violence amongst humanity?

You very clearly, with that statement, suggest that you view the 2nd as causal and therefore worthy of being infringed on but that we have not made the argument that the others are causal enough to be on the chopping block.  You view the 2nd as being causal and therefore worthy of infringement.

However, if you do NOT view the 2nd as being causal - then like the 1st and 4th - by your own logic the 2nd is not worth of infringement.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:

Free speech doesn't enable violence. Violence can and does exist without free speech. Guns enable a specific form violence as assault with a firearm would not exist without the firearm. Your apples don't go well with oranges, no matter how much you want them to. 

What an utter load of horseshit weasel wording!!!  Violence can and does exist without firearms.  Your weaseling about "specific forms of violence is typical Bentness.  There are specific forms of violence that would not exist without free speech.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bent Sailor said:
Quote

So what Chessie and I are saying is that focusing on only one of those enabling rights to the exclusion of all the others is a losing proposition if your true goal is violence reduction.  

I've already stated I'm happy to see them all on the table for review. Don't see what you're whining for. Seriously, leave the "I'm so misunderstood" thing for Tom. He needs to keep something for himself. 

But you have very clearly said above that they are NOT all on the table for review.  You said we have not made the argument for any of the others to "take the place of the 2nd".  You have clearly stated the 2nd is on the table for infringement but the others are not because they are "morally superior".  Try to at least keep your story consistent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:
3 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

There are specific forms of violence that would not exist without free speech.  

if you say so.

I just did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

A high quality, value added, intelligent reply as always Jeffie. 

What does your other sock, razr have to say about it?  He's usually a bit more reasonable. 

YooHoo Mitch, tap tap tap - are you in there?

As an aside, it appears I was right about the bi-polar thing.  Just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Uhhh, actually you did.  Here:

You very clearly, with that statement, suggest that you view the 2nd as causal and therefore worthy of being infringed on but that we have not made the argument that the others are causal enough to be on the chopping block.  You view the 2nd as being causal and therefore worthy of infringement.

No. I was responding directly to the Chesapeake's arguments in the thread about gun control advocates being unwilling to infringe on other rights in his constant hammering on causality. I was removing the argument from consideration by stipulating to being willing at infringe on any right that is causal, not agreeing with any premise that one is.

I have repeatedly stated on this forum, including to you, that I do not believe guns are causal to violence. I have never stated that they are. I have never suggested they are. I've never implied they are. Any view on your part that I believe that, or am willing to argue that, guns are causal to violence is purely in your imagination... or more likely, misrepresentative bullshit you're spinning because arguing my actual point is a little too hard for your black and white view of the issue.

For fuck's sake Jeffie, leave something for Dogballs to call his own. 

 

6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

However, if you do NOT view the 2nd as being causal - then like the 1st and 4th - by your own logic the 2nd is not worth of infringement.  

My logic regarding gun control has never been based upon the argument it is causal to violence. So, by my own logic, you're talking out your ass. Again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Violence can and does exist without firearms.

I never said otherwise. There is, however, no such thing as "free speech violence". There is not even such a thing as "speech violence". You're arguing apples and oranges again. 

 

6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

There are specific forms of violence that would not exist without free speech.  

No. There aren't. Violence is physical and does not require speech. Free or otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But you have very clearly said above that they are NOT all on the table for review.  You said we have not made the argument for any of the others to "take the place of the 2nd".  You have clearly stated the 2nd is on the table for infringement but the others are not because they are "morally superior".  Try to at least keep your story consistent.  

No. I have clearly stated that I see no argument for choosing one of the other rights over the second for infringement. That doesn't mean they're not options on the table, merely that you have not made an argument that would convince me to choose them. Completely consistent unless you're going Full Tom Ray looking for contradictions that don't exist in order to avoid actually having to make a point. 

Are you done trying to to tell me what I think by making up things I never said - or do you want to try dragging up posts from ten years ago on unrelated topics, join the Libertarian Party, move to Florida, and truly dedicate yourself to taking over Dogball's place on the forum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the OP.

When does social media hate speech become a real threat?

When the "leader" of the "free world" :rolleyes: is a fucking moron and speaks for all the USA via his twitter account?

CNN building evacuated after bomb threat

FAKE NEWS - THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Related to the topic question:

When is a hate speech law unconstitutional?
 

Quote

 

As readers might gather, I have only contempt for neo-Nazis. But the statutory provision to which the D.A.'s office is referring, N.Y. Penal Law 240.31, is unconstitutional. The relevant part of the statute reads,

A person is guilty of aggravated harassment in the first degree when with intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm another person, because of a belief or perception regarding such person's race, color, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability or sexual orientation, regardless of whether the belief or perception is correct, he or she:

Etches, paints, draws upon or otherwise places a swastika, commonly exhibited as the emblem of Nazi Germany, on any building or other real property, public or private, owned by any person, firm or corporation or any public agency or instrumentality, without express permission of the owner or operator of such building or real property.

And that impermissibly singles out a particular message based on its content and even its viewpoint, which is unconstitutional under R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) (and Virginia v. Black (2003)).

Now the government can generally criminalize the posting of all signs on private property without the owner's permission. It could likewise criminalize the posting of all such signs on government property; and the government as landlord can even set up rules that impose content-based but viewpoint-neutral constraints on what is posted on its property. (SUNY, for instance, can probably bar the posting of signs that contain vulgarities, even though the government can't generally criminalize vulgar speech.) But it can't target for special criminal punishment racist signs, or anti-government signs, or signs critical of various religious, sexual orientations, or what have you. Just as R.A.V. held that a ban on racist "fighting words" is unconstitutional even if a ban on "fighting words" generally is constitutional, so a ban on unauthorized signs that display a swastika is unconstitutional even if a ban on unauthorized signs generally is not.

 

Oh. That's when.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Is Section 230 Inconvenient?

When trying to enforce a sacred prohibition or trying to cen$or.
 

Quote

 

In California, various state entities have been eyeing and targeting Weedmaps, which helps connect consumers to cannabis dispensaries in their area and lets users review cannabis products, strains, and businesses. The Monterey Herald reports that "there's talk of the state Attorney General taking up a case against the company." Weedmaps is also facing a fight with the state Bureau of Cannabis Control (BCC).

The BCC tried to go after Weedmaps for not listing a BCC license number on its ads. But the bureaucrats backed off that route when the company pointed out that it was not legally required to be licenced by the agency.

BCC also argues that Weedmaps is "aiding and abetting in violations of state cannabis laws." Weedmaps notes which services are state-approved and includes their license numbers, but it doesn't refuse listings from businesses that don't provide proof of licensing. BCC says this makes Weedmaps party to any fraud or licensing violations committed by these businesses.

Imagine if the Yellow Pages of yore had to personally vetted all businesses it listed or accept liability for any of their wrongdoing. It would have been ludicrous. Luckily, Section 230 means online directories aren't responsible anytime a user ends up being or doing something shady.

 

Similarly, there have been efforts to hold Armslist, Grinder, and Yelp responsible for things users post. In the latter case,
 

Quote

 

In Bird v. Hassell, Ava Bird posted a negative review of lawyer Dawn Hassell on Yelp, didn't show up for court when Hassell sued her, and didn't take down the ad when the court ordered her to. Hassell argued that Yelp was responsible for removing the review, but Yelp had not been party to Hassell's lawsuit.

The Supreme Court of California ruled that Yelp isn't liable, and it specifically cited Section 230 in its ruling. Hassell then turned to the U.S. Supreme Court, which this week declined to hear the case. The California Supreme Court's decisions stands.

 

Glad the SCOTUS seems to think Section 230 says what it says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2018 at 8:09 AM, Shootist Jeff said:
Quote

RAUCH: Trying to deal with hate by repressing hate speech is like trying to deal with global warming by breaking the thermometers. The problem isn't the speech. The problem is the hate. And the way you deal with that problem is by understanding and confronting it.

 

Hmmmm.... deal with a threat that often leads to dead people by understanding and confronting the hate rather than take away the tools they use to perpetuate that hate????  Sounds radical.  Isn't prohibition always the answer?  Why don't we just prohibit social media platforms so these people can't spread their hate or become radicalized themselves from other's hate speech???

There are Rules

Rule 1. The First Amendment protects all ideas–loving, hateful, or in between.

Rule 2. Some speech is not protected by the First Amendment, but that's true regardless of whether it's bigoted or hateful.

Rule 3. Hate crime laws are constitutional, so long as they punish violence or vandalism, not speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this