SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Azuma Hazuki (5086)
Azuma Hazuki
(email not shown publicly)
Sapphic, sword-swinging schoolgirl seeking spacetime-sliding sister
(email not shown publicly)
Sapphic, sword-swinging schoolgirl seeking spacetime-sliding sister
Journal of Azuma Hazuki (5086)
The Fine Print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Friday April 28, 23
04:59 AM
Tolerance Is Not A Moral Precept.
This is a thorough once-over giving the lie to the "conservatives'" self-serving bullshit squealing that "Butbutbutbutbut if you don't tolerate my intolerance you're a hypocrite!" The short version, as put forth in the article, is this: tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact.
Put another way, it's social technology, just like laws. It allows us, in an ever-more-connected global society, to exist and function. Like a treaty it covers those, and only those, who are party to it.
This means that if you're a genocidal fucking psychopath then no, Virginia, we do not have to "tolerate" your unhinged ramblings. You are cancer in the body politic. You have gleefully ripped your human card to shreds and dropped the pieces in an incinerator, cackling like a hyena on PCP at how you have "owned the libs." You have placed yourselves outside the treaty. We are not obligated to put up with your shit.
tl;dr: if you can't behave like a civilized human being, don't be surprised when you get treated like a rabid animal. Read and be better, or don't, it's your choice, but don't bitch when you get your find-outs.
This is a thorough once-over giving the lie to the "conservatives'" self-serving bullshit squealing that "Butbutbutbutbut if you don't tolerate my intolerance you're a hypocrite!" The short version, as put forth in the article, is this: tolerance is a peace treaty, not a suicide pact.
Put another way, it's social technology, just like laws. It allows us, in an ever-more-connected global society, to exist and function. Like a treaty it covers those, and only those, who are party to it.
This means that if you're a genocidal fucking psychopath then no, Virginia, we do not have to "tolerate" your unhinged ramblings. You are cancer in the body politic. You have gleefully ripped your human card to shreds and dropped the pieces in an incinerator, cackling like a hyena on PCP at how you have "owned the libs." You have placed yourselves outside the treaty. We are not obligated to put up with your shit.
tl;dr: if you can't behave like a civilized human being, don't be surprised when you get treated like a rabid animal. Read and be better, or don't, it's your choice, but don't bitch when you get your find-outs.
On Tolerance - For Everyone Who Needs To Hear This
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 319 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
You're dead, Jim.
-- McCoy, "Amok Time", stardate 3372.7
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Friday April 28, @06:38AM (16 children)
Wikipedia: Paradox of tolerance [wikipedia.org]
It's not just right wing political types that fail to understand this: it is also people with strong opinions of how other people should behave who demand 'respect' for their irrational mythologies.
I think the Golden Rule is incomplete: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", because it allows people with irrational views about how they themselves should be treated to impose their behaviours on others.
The hard bit is determining where the line should be drawn for tolerating things. For example, the death penalty is too good for people who defile coffee with milk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @10:45AM (15 children)
I don't get it, you start out with an interesting argument, and then end with "Seriously, just kidding" in this line:
> the death penalty is too good for people who defile coffee with milk.
wtf?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @10:50AM
Are you seriously suggesting that people who "defile" coffee with milk should not be put to death? Don't think we can tolerate that. Some crimes are just too heinous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @02:03PM (5 children)
Look at what you misquoted. You left off the absolutely critical: "For example". Do you not understand the concept of analogy? Or illustrating a point by example?
I hope you're the same person who keeps doing that, and not one of too many.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by pTamok on Friday April 28, @04:02PM (4 children)
It might need spelling out.
1) Tolerance is good. We should be infinitely tolerant. We should be tolerant of people that espouse irrational beliefs that support the harming the well-being and health of others. If you disagree, just be tolerant.
2) "Well, people who put milk in coffee should be killed. It is completely unacceptable. In fact, death is too good for them, they should be tortured before death!"
3) That's plain mad, No way will I tolerate that. That's insane.
4) Maybe there is a line for tolerance after all? Maybe where it is drawn is up for discussion?
5) But that's a stupid example. Clearly no-one thinks that or tries to carry it out.
6) How do we tell the difference between stupid examples and not-stupid examples? Opinions might differ. Is there a 'litmus test' that shows a clear difference between stupid and not-stupid?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @05:56PM (1 child)
Simple, be intolerant of intolerance. Your #1 is the problem, infinite tolerance is reserved for people trying to become Buddha ;^D
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 01, @05:20PM
Even the Buddha becomes INTOLERANT if you try to enlightenment-block him!
Mara (demon) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @01:25AM (1 child)
That's a high level of lactose intolerance... 😉
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:18PM
Ylvis did a music video [youtube.com] about this.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 29, @02:56PM (5 children)
Sounds like this mean character (who does a lot more stuff than the quotes) is pretty intolerant, right? That it was also purely imaginary didn't slow down Hitler a bit.
Whether the imaginary intolerant foes take the form of vile coffee defilers or corrupt racial tuberculosis enablers, it's quite easy to completely derail the Popperian anti-intolerance train with utter nonsense. My take is this is happening here. The exercise of not tolerating intolerance is just a flimsy pretext for bigotry. Haters gotta hate, but they need to cast it as the other side's fault first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @06:13PM (4 children)
"The exercise of not tolerating intolerance is just a flimsy pretext for bigotry."
White supremacist says what? White lives matter!!
Lawl k d00d
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 29, @08:14PM (3 children)
JOOZ GONNA TUBE UR SOCIETZ. And Germany believed him enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @07:18PM (2 children)
Now the tricky part, learn from history! All the biggest fears of modern conservatives are ignorant nonsense hiding the real problems from conservative institutions.
Trans groomers? Nope, repressed religious fanatics grooming and abusing your kids.
Grabbing yer guns? Nope, conservatives have passed most gun restrictions and promoted dangerous gun liberties, a weird paradox. Remember the 2x popular vote loser saying they should take guns first and worry about due process later? Lefties member them berries.
Taxes? Lololol loser boy cemented much higher taxes for da plebes to give the richie richers more tax breaks. More socialism for those with all the wealth, punishment for everyone else.
Please let us know when you care to deal with the real world, which will include not supporting fascist traitors if you don't want to be lumped in with them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:39PM
I'm already dealing with the real world better than you are.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @06:23AM
And what is up with these two minute hates? You do realize that 1984 is not an instruction manual, right?
I can't say that I really care what foolishness you choose to engage in. Your wish to lump me in a category is just a manifestation of your intolerance not some failing on my part. How should I not tolerate it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @04:18PM (1 child)
Send them to GitMoo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @03:32AM
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @10:07AM (54 children)
So, there are two classes of felonies, those committed by the intolerant bigots and those committed by the tolerant progressives. Great doublethink. The road to perdition is wide and slippery.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 28, @11:09AM (42 children)
I think you may have missed an important point in the article. Progressives are people, so they must be tolerated. Conservatives are monsters, so we need not be tolerated.
I'm going to pray that Darth Zunger and Darth Hazuki don't further alter the deal!! /sarcasm
Funny that Zunger cites Westphalia, while making a case that there can be no peace with the monsters.
There is a small chance that I'm being unfair to Zunger here. Perhaps I should find out exactly who and what he means when he talks about Nazis. Does he use the term like Antifa uses it, or does he use the term to only include genuine Nazis and neoNazis?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Friday April 28, @01:30PM (35 children)
When you act like bigoted fucks, yes exactly. It's not that fucking complicated.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Friday April 28, @01:46PM (12 children)
It's all really very similar to issues around constitutional rights. The notion of "tolerating intolerance" makes no more sense than allowing someone the "constitutional right" to infringe on other's constitutional rights...another tactic that's popular on the right these days. Again, not that complicated for anyone with a few brain cells to rub together.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Friday April 28, @02:37PM (3 children)
Whoever modded these as Troll can seriously just fuck off and fucking die...seriously. Everything I said is the simple truth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 28, @03:31PM (2 children)
I modded both of those back up +1 Insightful because...well, that's what they are. And it's sad that such a simple thing is a radical insight these days but there you go.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 4, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Friday April 28, @04:21PM (1 child)
Thanks. Maybe you have the stomach to reply to Runaway's insane post below about how it's somehow like Hitler to "dehumanize" him by not tolerating his bigotry. I just don't have it in me to bother.
Funny thing really. He and I probably aren't in very different demographics generally...though I'm actually older. I'm an old, white, heterosexual, male from a very conservative family, so WASP that we trace back to the Mayflower. Yet somehow he manages to make me somewhat ashamed to be a human being.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @01:13AM
The whole point of such trolling is to exhaust patience, attention, your willingness to communicate and to demotivate you in general. That is a reason why the otherwise idiotic and inane things they do are their first option. They don't want to communicate; they want to win.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 29, @06:08PM (5 children)
Is that latter even a real thing? After all, there's that conservative rhetoric to the contrary like "the right to swing your fist ends at my nose." My bet is that it's the usual problem - people disagreeing on whether rights were being violated in the first place.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday April 30, @02:56PM (4 children)
The primary example that comes to mind is quite relevant to this journal actually. That's the idea that someone's freedom of religion allows them to discriminate against the LGBTQ community. The right loves that flawed argument for sure.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @04:29PM (3 children)
How were they discriminating? For example, the classic cases (here [cnn.com] and here [cnn.com]) are the wedding cake lawsuits where state regulators attempted to punish bakers for refusing to write messages on their cakes that were counter to their religious beliefs (violating two parts of the First Amendment - freedom of speech and freedom of religion). There, I agree with the results. It really is worse than discrimination to force people to say things that are counter to deeply held beliefs.
You don't have that same problem with the usual avenues of discrimination. There's no constitutional right violated in the workplace when you're hiring people or evaluating their job performance. Or when you serve people in a business. I'm sure somebody feels otherwise about it, but it's straight-forward just the same.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @05:36PM (2 children)
See "everything in Florida and Texas"
And u wondr y ppl yhink u argue in bad faith
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @07:25PM (1 child)
I doubt you're one of those people.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @05:49PM
Nazi sez wut?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @03:02AM (1 child)
It's called "State's Rights!" Like the right to force a woman to carry to term, force people to work for you for free (slavery) or without a right to organize (Right-to-work, for less). The South will lose Again!
Punching Nazis in the face is not violence, it is educational, and performed with the greatest love for the fellow human who has gone so astray. Poor Runaway!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @12:34AM
But oddly it's not a "State's Rights!" to force people to wear masks during a pandemic. It's not even the right of a private employer to force his employees to be vaccinated. Something about bodily autonomy.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 28, @04:12PM (15 children)
So, you're just fine with dehumanizing people who disagree with you.
Adolph had it right then? Dehumanize the Jews, dehumanize the conservatives, then it's just fine to genocide their asses away.
Kill the monsters!! Kill them! Burn them! Gas them!
Except, it won't work out like you might expect.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dalek on Friday April 28, @05:38PM (10 children)
This is particularly ironic coming from you, since you regularly dehumanize people who disagree with you and accuse them of grooming children. A common part of your playbook is that when people disagree with you, you dehumanize them and falsely accuse them of being pedophiles. Here's the evidence:
https://soylentnews.org/~Runaway1956/journal/12155 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1291568&sid=53676 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1269267&sid=51246 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1270975&sid=51246 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1291729&sid=53676 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1250777&sid=49645 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1294926&sid=54053 [soylentnews.org]
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=1248806&sid=49512 [soylentnews.org]
When people want everyone to have equal opportunity regardless of race, you falsely equate that to slavery and wish for the death of 50 million people who disagree with you. Here's the evidence:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=745579&sid=27952 [soylentnews.org]
Again, you dehumanize people who want racial equality, accusing them of trying to bring back slavery. Then you say that they should all be killed.
According to you, I'm just supposed to tolerate that you want to kill me and send me to Hell. If I don't accept that you want to kill me and send me to Hell for wanting racial equality, you accuse me of being a Nazi who wants to commit genocide.
As libertarians would say, your right to swing your fists ends where my nose begins. I don't have to tolerate the fact that you want to kill me. I am an educator, and I don't have to tolerate the fact that you attack educators like me with false accusations of child grooming. Tolerance doesn't mean accepting that you directly want to inflict harm upon those who disagree with you.
My problem with you isn't that you're from the South or that you're a conservative. My problem with you is that you're a hateful person of low character. If you don't like it, stop being hateful of others and improve your character. I'm not judging you on the basis of stereotypes. I'm judging your actions and using them to discern your character. We can have differences of opinion on a great many issues, but some things are intrinsically evil and should never be tolerated. When you're expressing your support for intrinsically evil ideas, you shouldn't expect others to tolerate it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 28, @06:08PM (9 children)
Utter bullshit. Progressives no longer want "racial equality". You need to go back and look at what they are calling for today. 70 years ago, segregation was a bad thing - today segregation is a good thing. Liberals, and even more, progressives, have made a complete 180 degree turn away from racial equality. They don't want equal treatment in hiring, or education, or much of anything else. Let an Asian get a scholarship ahead of a black person, and all hell breaks loose.
Me? I'm all for racial equality. Have you looked at the demographics today, of people buying firearms, many of them for the first time? Blacks, Asians, gays, females in droves. They understand that although God created man, Sam Colt made men equal.
Meanwhile, 'Zumi posts a link to a story that says you should dehumanize me. Cool. You go along with that. You're happy with it..
Don't tell me about equality - progressives don't want anything that resembles equality.
As for grooming children - what race do groomers belong to?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @06:49PM
Interesting question. Arkansas? The Dugger race? (Funny how waco christian "quivering full" makes for genetic mutation.) We have some projection here.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 28, @07:18PM (1 child)
You've dehumanized yourself. All I'm doing is pointing and laughing :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:34AM
Does not one have to be in an initial state of humanity, before one can be "de-humanized"? Asking for a friend (OK, it's Runaway).
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @11:21PM (4 children)
Everyone on this site has given you more slack than you deserve. You are a bigot that DELIGHTS in trolling, and a sock puppeter tryimg to artificially sway opinions via mod abuse.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @10:43AM (3 children)
I haven't. I know where the fucker lives.
aristarchus
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @01:09AM (2 children)
Crossing the line and actually doxxing someone makes you just as bad. Repirting to feds and local law enforcement (heh kkkops wouldnt care) is acceptable, but you doxxed someone online. Runaway may be a false bravado old fucker, maybe bad enough to shoot some innocent anTEEfuh innocent, but doxxing is shithead behavior. Fighting the racist asshole on SN isn't going to solve our problems, but nothing will when supposed Christians (and Muslims as offshoots of Judaism like Christianity) are so eager to abandon the very simple 10 commandments with a variety of excuses why hurting others like illegals and "thugs" *dogwhistle* is totally fine and actually god's will /puke
Regardless, you doxxed runaway and continue to threaten. It serves a purpose only to remind runaway of his mortality, to everyone else you're just another violent asshole. SN has problems and does not want to change, deal with it and move on, community has made it pretty clear that rightwing bullshit is not wanted or believed but for a few. Runaway will not suffer further consequences, but his main account is rather tarnished by his own publications.
Move on or chill out, most everyone are quite aware of the problems, but barring community protest for some change there is no point wasting further focus on the vendetta. The zoomers understand CRT, long run we'll be ok if society survives climate change and humanity manages to irradiate its own planet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @06:44PM (1 child)
SoylentNews admin has never said who it was that was doxxed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @09:32PM
That is SOP for doxxing.
Admins claim the aristarchus account doxxed, and they say the info is still in the database but will not link to it. I recall the aristarchus account posting some kind of doxxing info, are you saying that is false? That the aristarchus account never posted Runawa1956's info? I've seen joke addresses and some that looked real, also Runaway's real name supposedly posted by AC.
I think you're just a vindictive asshole sinking to Runaway's level because the site run by libertarian types refused to ban a degenerate like Runaway1956. I hope the libertarians are figuring out why free speech only protects people from the government, and why those running web forums should clean up users that promote violence and bigotry.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @05:07AM
The liberals aren't great, but they're saints next to you.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @06:45PM (1 child)
Runaway1956 is making paranoid death threats again! This behavior should not be tolerated. Ban him, now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:38AM
Ban him, twice.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @09:32PM
I will just note that Adolph did not dehumanize the Jews because they had the temerity to disagree with him. Instead he thought of them as subhuman because they were...well...Jews. Big difference.
Oh, please! Put away your persecution complex. People think you are a bigot and it is because of the things you yourself have written here on SN. What's the matter, little runaway? Don't like it when people find your views offensive? Suck it up and take it like a man! Or maybe SN is just not the place for you?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday April 28, @09:54PM
Do you not read your own journal posts?
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @06:42PM
Ignorant moron monsters! Total perversions of humanity!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @08:31PM (4 children)
Action as bigoted fucks means nothing. Bigotry is about how you stick to your beliefs. So there is no whatsoever correlation between an act by a bigot and an act that interferes with other people's freedoms.
I think we can all agree on the fact that if you interfere with my freedom, I should be able to interfere with yours. But being a bigot does not entail it. And that makes you the fascists.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 29, @08:40PM
Oh, don't get me wrong: you can think all the vile shit you want, as long as it stays in your head. The moment you start calling for turning people into second-class citizens, you've crossed the line.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @03:34AM (1 child)
No, we don't so agree. There are two problems with that. First, if you're a nutcase, then you may have deluded yourself into something that isn't true - such as the "stop the steal" people or the Jewish space lasers woman. Second, there's a tendency to escalate when reverse violation is the first resort especially among the previously mentioned crazy class. Your dog pooped on my lawn, now I'm trashing your mailbox, now you're slashing my car tires, and now I'm shooting your windows out.
My experience is that rational people normally deal with said interference through more peaceable means first. Sure, if someone is robbing your house while you're sleeping, you shouldn't be expected to talk it out. But most rights interference is mundane and easy to resolve. If a neighborhood kid is playing their music too loud, talk to the parents first. Maybe they don't know that's happening (say the kid does it when the parents are away) and it can be easily fixed without attacking anyone's rights.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @08:07AM
Far too much detail in this for it not to be the actual lived experience of a khallow. Only question that remains, which side of it was he on? Poopy dog? Mailbox? Or Mowing down noisy kids, like a Texan?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 01, @05:28PM
According to the Civil Rights Act being free from discrimination IS my right!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Friday April 28, @05:43PM (4 children)
It is not conservatism that we don't tolerate; it is bigotry that we do not tolerate. If modern day conservatives want to be tolerated then they need to end their current obsession with persecuting transgenders and women.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @10:10AM (1 child)
Ah, a sentiment I could heartily agree with, if I could moderate. Could the Admin look into why solylentils like me are unable to moderate? Curious situation.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @11:42AM
Oh, must be because of all the spam mods! Check! WilcoFlaconTaxidermy!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @10:06PM (1 child)
Bigotry is a way of thinking. You may want to reformulate, comrade.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Monday May 01, @06:08PM
It is, and it is unequivocally wrong. I suspect that I wouldn't care for your formula, and that you are no comrade of mine. Good day sir.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @03:37AM
Hmm, perhaps I'm wrong about this "white race" thing.
It's actually about the conservative race, and their race war with the progressive race.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @09:49PM
Yeah... slippery. "I beat him up but my bigotry leading up to it wasn't my fault, it was an accident!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15, @06:31PM (9 children)
11 Brand New Biden Family Scandals the Networks Are CENSORING [newsbusters.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 15, @10:57PM
At Least 5 Whistleblowers Come Forward Against Biden Family [breitbart.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16, @03:48AM (2 children)
"The American Public Was Scammed": Trump Responds After Bomshell Durham Report 'Exonerates' [zerohedge.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16, @05:32AM (1 child)
JimBob Hunter Biden laptop posts are the very epitome of Spam. Mod accordingly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16, @06:46AM
From Special Counsel John Durham? He seems like a fairly reliable source.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16, @09:37PM
Feds Arrested and Convicted Hunter Biden’s Chinese Business Partner Patrick Ho But Ignored Hunter’s Role in Corruption Case and Even Redacted His Name – Then The Laptop From Hell Pieced It All Together [thegatewaypundit.com]
Feds' Foreign-Corruption Double Standard: They Protected Bidens Even as They Bore Down on Trumpworld [realclearinvestigations.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 16, @11:59PM (1 child)
Media Admits They Lied About That Russia Collusion Thing But Are Totally Telling The Truth About Everything Else [babylonbee.com]
Hillary Clinton: The Only Crime I Ever Committed Was Stealing The Hearts Of The American People! [babylonbee.com]
(Score: 1) by dalek on Thursday May 18, @06:39AM
A lot of the reporting was based on the Steele Dossier, which has been thoroughly debunked for awhile now. Back in 2021, CNN posted a pretty good discussion of the issues with the dossier: https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html [cnn.com]. Even so, the Washington Post ran an op-ed harshly criticizing CNN for not drawing more attention to the discrediting of the dossier: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/23/cnn-steele-dossier-reckoning-stelter/ [washingtonpost.com]. Russia did attempt to interfere in the 2016 election, but the media did fail in corroborating the salacious claims in the dossier, and they should reported this accurately. It's an absolute failure of journalistic ethics. CNN and other outlets that reported on the dossier as if it were credible should be harshly criticized for this. They were wrong.
Here's the problem. We also know the narrative pushed about election fraud in 2020 pushed by outlets like Fox, NewsMax, and OANN was absolutely false. As part of the Dominion lawsuit, Tucker Carlson's text messages were obtained. These messages show that Carlson privately knew claims of election fraud were nonsense. But he went on the air and pushed that narrative anyway. It is a fact that Fox hosts were well aware that claims of fraud in the 2020 election were highly suspect, but reported on them as if they were accurate.
If you're going to criticize media outlets like CNN over their reporting of the Steele Dossier, you need to hold Fox, NewsMax, and OANN to the same standard. Unfortunately, the Babylon Bee has completely failed to be intellectually honest. This probably isn't something you should be quoting as if others should take it seriously.
The Steele Dossier has been thoroughly discredited. It should never have been reported on as if it were credible. It's time to hold Fox, NewsMax, and OANN to the same standard about the 2020 election.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, @06:15PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 20, @07:39PM
FIVE REVELATIONS IN FIVE DAYS Expose Chris Wray’s FBI as Criminal Enterprise Devoid of Morals and Legitimacy [thegatewaypundit.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @10:14AM (1 child)
Until you realize you were the ones being tolerated all along.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 01, @04:24PM
And continue to be tolerated...
It's hilarious Runaway think's he's NOT being tolerated in this thread right now!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Mojibake Tengu on Friday April 28, @12:08PM (12 children)
He who tolerates Evil becomes a part of it.
Do you think there are separate or common hells for liberals and conservatives?
The edge of 太玄 cannot be defined, for it is beyond every aspect of design
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @12:29PM (7 children)
> He who tolerates Evil becomes a part of it.
Translation: Therefore, all male users of MS-Windows are Evil.
Q. Why do the females get a pass here? /s
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 28, @02:08PM (5 children)
Obvious answer: they own and control the pussies. And yes, sadly, men do care.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @09:56AM (4 children)
khallow wing-man incel pick-up artist response? Just turn gay, boy! It will save you lots of pain, suffering, and rejection. Some soylentils can help you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @03:39AM (3 children)
You need a sexy PC case stat. And keyboard that glows in the dark.
Pick up women on the internets and you got that covered.
Because?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @09:48AM (2 children)
It disturbs me how much you appear to know about that world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @04:46PM (1 child)
It's not so much how much he knows about the world that disturbs me but which parts of the world he seems to be so intimately acquainted with. Just sayin'.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 18, @07:15AM
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @04:25PM
They don't do Windows?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday April 28, @03:34PM
The question is malformed on the face of it. Hell is more state of being than a concrete place. In one sense, there is a separate Hell for every single person in it. In another sense, there is only one Hell, as anywhere can be Hell. Given your post history, if that is an accurate representation of your state of mind and your age, you will be finding out rather soon.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @04:02AM
I can swear there ain't no heaven
But I pray there ain't no hell
Do you believe "karma" is really serendipity?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @04:52AM
It's the same Hell. The constant political bickering is what makes it Hell.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday May 01, @01:57PM
The answer is obvious, "separate, but equal". Okay, that joke just made itself.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Friday April 28, @05:51PM (6 children)
I think perhaps this can be generalized to "there should be no absolute" or perhaps "There is only one absolute, which is not well defined".
The first generalization is easier to comprehend. In the case of tolerance, absolute tolerance would lead you to tolerate evil so we can, on that basis, reject tolerance as an absolute.
Now when you start applying this to other virtues it gets tricky. Like love for example. We generally regard it as a virtue, but if you try to imagine absolute love you first have to define love, and that gets tricky. In the Bible we have "there is no greater love than a man lays down his life for a friend" or something like that; but by no means is sacrifice a perfect proxy for love.
So that leads us to the 2nd generalization -- that there is an absolute virtue, we just can't define it.
IMHO, when religion does good, it's in the attempt to define and attain such an absolute virtue and even the irreligious recognize it as good. OTOH, when religion fails it's often because they chose a virtue and made in an absolute. e.g., absolute obedience. First, it's arguably not even a virtue, and even when it is, it creates opportunities for abuse.
Now send me $25, because I just told you obedience is a virtue.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday April 28, @07:30PM
What if one looks to tolerance not as an "absolute", but as a point-on-the-horizon "goal"? What would that goal look like, as something to navigate towards? If we don't have even a direction [schlockmercenary.com], it just seems like one's time would be better spent on issues where we do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @05:23AM (4 children)
That is a very Modern Western interpretation. In most schools of normative ethics, the entire idea of "absolute virtue" is self-contradictory. Virtue, by its nature, requires moderation because the state of being drives to excess. And this excess of anything is inherently a vice compared to the ideal we seek.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by istartedi on Saturday April 29, @04:05PM (3 children)
I'm not a philosopher, but it seems to me that if you conclude "absolute virtue" is self-contradictory, it's because your definition of virtue failed, not because the idea of absolute virtue is failed.
Programming analogy follows
Programmer: This program meets your specifications perfectly.
Customer: It's still not what I want.
Programmer: Either the notion of meeting your specifications perfectly is self-contradictory, or the specifications are insufficient. The former sounds like bunk, so let's keep talking.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @10:21PM (2 children)
Ignoring the fact that "meeting a specification" isn't a normative virtue, the notion of meeting their specification is self-contradictory in your analogy. On its face, you move away from meeting what they want by trying to follow their specification perfectly; the "better" specification follower is, in fact, the person who imperfectly follows the imperfect specification for they are the ones that will actually effectuate the true desires. In addition, specifications are snapshots of desire while actual desires are affected by the passage of time and perspective and a perfect specification follower would have spotted the insufficient specification in the first place.
Furthermore, a programmer has different goals, perspectives, and motivations. Inherently, being a "good" programmer in practice often means breaking the virtue of following the specification in order to effectuate a (working, cost-effective, deliverable, legal, etc.) program because they know that informal specifications are inaccurate by nature or must bend to the demands of the Universe. In truth, possession of "meets specification" as a virtue is, by necessity, the full embracing of all the considerations underlying their actions. A "good programmer" (or specification meeter) isn't simply someone who creates a program that does what it is supposed to do. Nor do they, as aspect of their character follow the specification just because that is what should be done. Instead, it is the holistic balancing of considerations and judgments in order to actualize the state of being underlying those ideas. And it that, they live the virtues instead of acting the virtues.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @08:10AM (1 child)
Yep, it was a mistake to get rid of the philosopher. Code monkeys are not a acceptable substitute.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @08:01AM
Won't you come home, aristarchus, won't you come home? We missed you all the long time!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday April 28, @08:50PM (117 children)
Racism is not a touchy subject if you are not racist.
I would also point out for those who don't already know this, there is nothing wrong with being female.
I cannot tolerate anyone who is intolerant.
How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Friday April 28, @11:30PM (115 children)
So, it's alright to be white then?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @02:36AM
Of course it is.
But it's not alright to be an asshole.
Which is something too many (present company included) seem to ignore these days.
And more's the pity.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 29, @04:06AM (100 children)
It's definitely all right to be white. I am, and it'd be a sad day if I didn't think it was all right.
Thing is, though? "It's all right to be white" is mostly said by people who are loading tons and tons of said-the-quiet-part-loud baggage onto it. The kind of people who think, for example, that what Europe and the US did to Africa was "civilizing them," or that white people invented all of civilization itself.
Sure, you assholes TRY to hide behind the literal meaning of a single sentence, but your associations and other very obvious tells give the game away. You in particular have said more than once that you fear Hispanic people "outbreeding" whites...which, from a genetic standpoint, is a nonsense statement since Hispanic heritage is Causacoid! So, incidentally, are the two favorite punching bags for your little camp of haters, the ethnic Jews and the Arabs. Where, exactly, is the Caucasus and what language is "Aryan" from originally? :D
tl;dr: you don't fool anyone. Die mad and reincarnate madder.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 29, @04:46AM (99 children)
That's a problem for all of you who carry baggage around.
None of my family tree carries any baggage like that.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dalek on Saturday April 29, @12:32PM (98 children)
We're not judging you for the sins of your family. We're judging you for your own sins.
You weren't alive in the 19th century. None of us was alive during that time. We aren't responsible for slavery. I don't know hold old you are, but I certainly was born well after Brown v. Board of Education, so I am not responsible for segregation.
However, ending segregation and ending slavery didn't instantly undo the effects that those evils had on people. It's illegal to directly impose segregation, whether it's in housing, schools, or public establishments. Despite this, a lot of American cities are still very segregated to this day. That segregation also corresponds with differences in education, wealth, and the opportunity for upward mobility in society. Although it's illegal to have policies that directly segregate people according to race, segregation has not ended. A Black person living in the inner city does not have equal opportunity compared with a white person living in the suburbs. I know this very well from living in one of the most segregated cities in America.
Although you're definitely not responsible for slavery, and I highly doubt you're responsible for directly imposing segregation, you certainly can do something about the situation right now. You can work toward providing equal opportunity for everyone. A Black person living in the inner city deserves the same opportunity as a white person living in the suburbs. Even if you can't directly change the situation, you can still be honest enough to acknowledge that the problem is real. The first step toward addressing the problem is admitting that there is a problem. Even if you don't have any direct influence on policy, you can still express support for efforts to help Black people in our inner cities have equal opportunity as the white people living in the suburbs. Your problem is that you oppose providing equal opportunity. You could support policies that would provide a more equal level of opportunity for Black people living in inner cities. Instead, you falsely claim that it's just an effort to enslave white people. By spreading FUD, you're working to maintain segregation.
I'm not judging you for anything your family did. I'm not judging you for being white. Those are things you can't control. I'm judging you based on your words and your actions, because those are in your control. This isn't about your family tree or your race. This is about you and your actions.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Saturday April 29, @07:31PM (96 children)
Perhaps that is true of you - or not. Meanwhile, you can go on Youtube and find shit like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdX6aVzPgHs [youtube.com]
Maybe there are some white people in that crowd who have gone out of their way to be shitheads toward black folk, and they should be begging forgiveness. But, for a bunch of white people to get together, and basically apologize for being white? That is shit.
But then you fuck up with "We're judging you for your own sins."
You ain't got a clue. Just stop being so presumptuous, it makes you look like a woke fool.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by dalek on Saturday April 29, @08:07PM (94 children)
I'm not being presumptuous. Once again, you're the person who thinks giving equal opportunity to Black people is an attack on white people. Again, you're the person who wants to kill everyone who disagrees with you. Here's that comment again: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?cid=745579&sid=27952 [soylentnews.org].
Your response is b-b-b-b-b-but some crazy liberal said something stupid on the internet. I'm not interested in clicking random Youtube links you send me. But I know that with any group of a reasonably large size, there will be a few crazy people within that group. I'm not promoting their crazy ideas, and I condemn them when I see them.
Likewise, I'm not judging you because of what other conservatives say. I'm judging you by what you've said. These are the sins I'm talking about, that you want to kill everyone who disagrees with you and send them to Hell. That is exactly what you mean when you say, "Kill 'em all, and let God sort them out."
For some reason you don't think you should have to take personal responsibility for your own actions. Your response was a bunch of whataboutism, that there are some liberals who say crazy things. There are some liberals with crazy ideas, and they're wrong. But you're taking the crazy ideas of a few and saying it's what all liberals want. It's nothing more than an excuse to deflect from your own behavior.
When will you take responsibility for your own actions? When will you take responsibility for saying that promoting equal opportunity for Black people is attacking white people? When will you take responsibility for saying that you want to kill everyone who disagrees with you?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 30, @12:46AM (22 children)
I don't know how you define "equal opportunity". I know for damned sure that giving a position to a black person, when there are white, Latino, Asian, and Native Americans better qualified, is NOT "equal opportunity". It is only "equal opportunity" when the black guy gets the position, because he/she is the most qualified candidate. The converse situations are all true as well - it is only "equal opportunity" when the Native American gets the position, because he is the most qualified for that position.
If you have a shred of honesty, you'll admit that I've always wanted the most qualified person in any position, and I don't give a damn what race/culture/ethnicity that person might be.
You're really hung up on that 20 million dead. Maybe it's past time for you to read that entire discussion. A progressive suggested that it might be time to go to war against conservatives. Put it all in context. Our last civil war cost .8 million American's lives - officially. I don't think all bodies were counted, but the official number is .8 million.
If there is another civil war in the US, there WILL BE many millions dead.
And, I certainly hope that most are progressives. The child groomers. The abortion rights people. The guys who feel they are justified competing in women's sports. The dumb sons of bitches who vote for Senile Joe.
Do you think the Catholic Church would accept me back into the fold? LOL - certainly you know the origin of that para-quote.
BTW - progressive isn't a race. Fuckwits on the left/progressive side of things want to call everything racism these days. Are you another fuckwit? Progressive is a mental disease, not a race.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dalek on Sunday April 30, @01:56AM (14 children)
It's a myth that there is substantial support for hiring someone who is less qualified on the basis of race. It's a common talking point, but it's false.
Let's talk about why there isn't equal opportunity. Let's talk about children who live in inner city neighborhoods and have to fear for their safety going to and from school. Let's talk about children who might have a parent in prison, where the other parent struggles to pay the bills. Let's talk about children who attend public schools in those inner city neighborhoods, where the quality of education is substantially inferior to wealthier areas, which diminishes the opportunity for those children to attend college and to be qualified for those jobs. By the numbers, the children living in conditions like that are disproportionately Black. They don't have equal opportunity, not even close. That is the lasting effect of segregation, decades after it was outlawed. There most certainly is not equal opportunity.
Those are not the words of a sane person, nor are they the words of a person who has a firm grasp on reality. Any person who is mentally healthy would say that we need to find some way to avoid turning to violence. They wouldn't cheer on killing people who disagree with them. I don't care if it's one person, 20 people, or 20 million people. This isn't about a number. It's about you wanting to kill people who disagree with you. You've completely dehumanized those people. I cannot fathom that a person who is mentally healthy would hold such views. Despite the vile things you've said, I won't respond in kind. Instead, I choose to forgive you for what you've said. Although I despise what you've said, I don't want to bring any harm upon you at all.
For your own good, please seek a psychiatric evaluation if you haven't already received one. You're not behaving normally nor rationally. Your words are not those of a healthy person. I sincerely hope you receive treatment and can improve your quality of life. I only wish I'd realized what's going on with you sooner. If so, I'd have chosen my words much more carefully in my previous comments.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 30, @03:40AM (13 children)
You lie, and you know it. The US government and all it's contractors have had hiring quotas for decades. Major corporations with or without government contracts observe those quotas. Even small businesses work to meet the quotas. Minorities often get the position, when better qualified people are available.
Doctor Ben Carson would disagree with you. Amazing, the things a person can do, if he just refuses to join the gangs.
I have a very firm grasp on reality. We don't live in a fairy tale world. Progressive/socialist/collectivist/Marxist/leftist people like Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot have demonstrated time and again what kind of world your fairy tales lead to. All that kumbaya bullshit leads to mass murder. One of the reasons that the Second Amendment is so very important.
But you keep telling those lies. Keep calling me a Nazi, or fascist, or whatever.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dalek on Sunday April 30, @09:15AM (6 children)
Let's revisit your solution to prevent mass murder.
Apparently you seem to think the way to prevent mass murder is by committing mass murder.
You're not even remotely making sense at this point, and that makes me very concerned for your mental health. I implore you to please seek psychiatric help. It's for your own good. Please reach out and contact a mental health professional, get evaluated, and get treatment. It might be very difficult to admit that you have a problem. There's an unfair stigma about mental health issues, and that's really unfortunate and awful. But any decent person would respect you and support you for seeking treatment. And I assure you that no matter how difficult it might be at the beginning, you'll feel better once you get help. From what I've seen from your posts, I am genuinely concerned for your mental health. Please seek help, for your own good.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 30, @11:51AM (5 children)
You seem to be obsessed with my posts - but you have totally failed to get the context I invited you to look at. A progressive said that maybe it's time for a civil war. I explained what a civil war would look like. I didn't threaten to start the civil war, I merely explained what civil war is. At this point, you're failing to make sense of rational statements, because you have chosen to ignore the context.
If the progressives start a civil war, and the conservatives put the progressives down, it's not murder. It is self defense.
Check you own mental well being. You're confused about a lot of things.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dalek on Sunday April 30, @07:12PM
When I say that I'm concerned about your mental health, I'm not doing that as an insult. I'm saying that because I am sincerely concerned about your mental health.
You claim that a progressive said they want a Civil War. I went back and checked. That's false. Here's the first post in that thread supporting a second civil war: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=27952&cid=745199 [soylentnews.org]. I went back and looked through jmorris' posting history, and I am quite confident they were not a progressive.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @10:42AM (3 children)
I am more interested in your dick, Runaway, and whether you have gotten it back from the Nigerian witches yet. Could you give us an update on the progress of the phallus recovery mission, so far?
Oh, and dalek is right, you are wrong about who drew first threat of blood. Definitely a deplorable conservative racist, like yourself.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @09:46AM (2 children)
Is this the reason Runaway never gets hired for any of those Firm Action jobs? He is disqualified through being dickless? I can see how for some jobs, that would be disqualifying, but the fact that Runaway cannot get jobs where this is not a prerequisite, suggests that he is being all reverse-discriminated because of his phallic deficiency. Look for birds nests, up in trees, Ruanway. According to the Malleum Malificarum, that is where the witches keep all the penises they have stolen. Yours might be amoung them.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @10:21AM (1 child)
Is it true that Runaway has no penis? Is this an irremediable condition? How long as it been like this? Is he the only one, or is that what happened to Tucker Carson, too? So many questions, so few answers.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @08:04AM
I just love it when dalek rips Runaway a new asshole! Not like it is that hard for any Soylentil to do the same. Except janrinok, who strangely seems to be protecting the racist asshole.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 01, @05:39PM (4 children)
Hiring Quotas are illegal in the US [dol.gov]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @08:25PM (1 child)
But how else can you account for Runaway NOT being hired for all those jobs, when obviously, being white, he was the best qualified? I fear you do not understand white privilege, and white fragility, adequately. Next!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @10:02PM
Maybe he wasn't hired for those jobs because he's a dumbfuck screw up with an overbearing sense of entitlement? Could that possibly be the reason?
<sneer>Yeah, I'm sure that is what the little runaway would like us to believe, but it just isn't true.</sneer>
Oh, rest assured, many of us here on SN are very well acquainted with the little runaway's over-weaned sense of privilege and hair-trigger "white fragility".
Indeed!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 01, @09:53PM (1 child)
Double speak notwithstanding, if the goals aren't met, the contractor won't get, or keep contracts. Hire a lawyer if you want to produce more and better doublespeak nonsense.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @10:23AM
Runaway Snowflake. Melting as his jerbs are taken away from him by blacks, and Hispanics, and women, and dogs, and robots, and incests.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday May 02, @04:57PM
You shoulda put a little more distance between those two thoughts.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @03:14AM (6 children)
Back at'cha, you fucking nazi traitor to America! I hope, like we all hope, that you live a long and peaceful life, and stop being such a violence-insighting asshole! Watch out for the Dark Brandon, Runsaway! He's gonna gitchya!!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @09:51AM (5 children)
Can anyone explain to me how this comment ended up being spam modded? Bueller?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @08:12AM (4 children)
I think it is part of janrinok's unguided spam mod program, designed to down mod [by a -10] anyone who does not swear fealty to him. Cf. Charles the Turd's inauguration. Brit bastards. One Ireland, one island, one people, and fuck the Anglish!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @11:41AM (3 children)
Scot's liberation now! Free the Stone of Scone! And #FreeC0lo!!!!1!!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @08:49AM (2 children)
I thought, according to turgid, that only British subjects were bound by law to not say anti-royalist, gay things. Or was that DeSanitas? So why was this comment spam modded?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:23PM (1 child)
Found the Brexiteer Royalist!! G'day, Janrinok!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 09, @06:21AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @04:10PM (70 children)
It's all context. If it's one crazy liberal saying mean things on the internets, then sure, that response is inappropriate. But if it's 50 million crazy liberals trying to kill poor Runaway and a lot of other people like him, then it's not. And well, given that Runaway is seeing groomers in every classroom right now, I'm leaning towards not appropriate. But neither do I consider this a significant sin. Maybe if Runaway threatens to personally murder a trillion crazy liberals with his bare hands. That's a lot of crazy liberals and we'll have to start the sin counter at that point.
My view is that this whole thing is crazy. The line should be drawn at a rational standard of causing harm not beliefs. It's not that hard. Someone has racism cooties doesn't mean that the forces of good need to be mobilized to isolate the contagion. Similarly, a trans in the classroom isn't a sign of the endtimes.
Despite all the whining about the scary January 6 protest, that's an excellent model for how to handle protesters who break the law. A terrible model is how the violent aspects of the Floyd protests were handled in the northwest US, in Portland and Seattle. People were allowed to commit crimes for months on end in Portland, and just take over a neighborhood for several weeks in Seattle. It's done now, but that helped escalate the craziness we see now.
Also, pick better leaders in the US. Trump is particularly bad, being a significant contributor to the all the protests I have mentioned.But we haven't had a decent president since Clinton. Let's fix that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @10:21PM (37 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @12:57AM (36 children)
Because it's merely an inflammatory term with no rational value.
You just showed it's you doing it. GOP didn't force you to rant about "insurrectionist".
You mean you've never been exposed before to people comparing the Floyd protests to the January 6 protests? Consider this your baptism then.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @04:15AM (35 children)
It's a description of both their intent and their actions on Jan 6th. Dismissing the attempted insurrection is what's both irrational and inflammatory. They have not been able to justify their behavior and you haven't, either.
> You mean you've never been exposed before to people comparing the Floyd protests to the January 6 protests?
No. I meant what I actually said and not your weird re-imagining of it. The GOP didn't distance themselves from the insurrectionists because they were righteous. I also did not will the GOP to force you to defend them or whatever that nonsense was you tried to pin on me.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @05:36AM (34 children)
Thinking about it, I suppose I should have distinguished between a description and a crime. If you wish to describe them as penguins fishing in the Antarctic, it's just as valid IMHO as calling them insurrectionists. You have considerable freedom of speech. If on the other hand, you're calling for them to be prosecuted for a crime of insurrection - which is the very strong impression I've been getting since shortly after January 6, we have actual laws that must satisfied first.
Have you justified their behavior either? I don't see why it's supposed to be noteworthy that I haven't justified their behavior when you haven't either. If it really matters that much to you (and I doubt it does), then do it yourself. I get you're not defending them in any way, but I'm merely defending them against frivolous accusations of crime.
And I find your attitude irrational in other ways. The key one is that dismissing the attempted insurrection is the smart move. For example, consider this list of alleged rebellions [wikipedia.org] by Wikipedia (including the Seattle CHAZ and January 6 protests). Only two really were influential (the US Revolutionary War, and the US Civil War). Some others might have been preludes to the major rebellions (such as the War of the Regulators [wikipedia.org] or John Brown's raid [wikipedia.org]. But in general, the vast majority of these didn't go far historically. That's where I see the January 6 protest. We've had two years to see consequences of the protest, and there wasn't much. Hysteria like what you exhibit here is the worst effect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @04:23PM (17 children)
No, I have not made your argument for you. Have you explained why they're insurrectionists?
> Hysteria like what you exhibit here is the worst effect.
Actually by your own standards this goes in my favor. Trump recently called on them to attack again and they refused. They thought they'd be heroes the first time around, now they know better despite your attempts to enable them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:46AM (16 children)
My argument doesn't depend on me justifying anyone's behavior.
What does "called on them to attack again" actually mean?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @09:19PM (15 children)
Maybe so, maybe no, but I'm not the one going to bat for them. That's a position you took up, though your inability to make your point without pushing the goal-posts together until they're touching raises the question of why you're even bothering.
> What does "called on them to attack again" actually mean?
I really don't believe you don't know what I'm referring to, and my free time is short.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @11:34PM (14 children)
I don't nor do I have interest in researching vague assertions. You couldn't even be bothered to quote Trump.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @12:16AM (13 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04, @03:59AM (11 children)
Or shows that I'm not hot-headed about this subject. When your narrative disagrees with reality, it's not reality that's wrong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:54AM (10 children)
And what do you do when reality is wrong? Narrow it down! ”My take is that I’m right because your judgement of my narrative irrelevant unless an unspecified individual is ruled innocent, not guilty doesn’t count for my convenience.”
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04, @10:41PM (9 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @11:49PM (8 children)
Game, set, match.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:03PM (7 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @04:18AM (6 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @06:14AM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @06:55AM (4 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @07:06AM (3 children)
Perhaps next time you can something other than "shrug".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @07:42AM (2 children)
Insecurity, right there. Now we know specifically where it is. Not that it’s a big revelation or anything, since you’ve been counting the years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @09:51AM (1 child)
shrug
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:30PM
www.dictionary.com
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @06:54PM
Strange, that is the exact behavior of a prototype LLM AI! Khallow is a machine! (I knew it!)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @01:53AM (15 children)
Khallow finds something irrational yet refers to the J6 insurrection as a 'protest'? Poor khallow, so shallow, very libertarian mm hmmmm!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:03AM (14 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @09:28PM (13 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @11:32PM (12 children)
They sound pretty stupid. But then that's been the thing for the last two years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @01:03AM (1 child)
<rolls eyes>
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @09:53AM
[khallow excitement building!]
/
Definitely some excitement taking place.
/
Shit just got real.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @01:14AM (9 children)
That is the most sophisticated argument about the insurrection you've made for the last two years. Or maybe it's just the novelty of hearing a rebuttal that isn't substance-free pedanticism.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04, @03:57AM (8 children)
When unsophisticated arguments work, we need to look elsewhere for the actual problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @04:25AM (7 children)
They haven"t, and you won't follow your own suggestion.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04, @05:17AM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @06:01AM (5 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 04, @10:40PM (4 children)
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @02:46AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:01PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:37PM (1 child)
Heh, khallow is melting down, not sure why simple concepts like treason are so bloody hard for conservatives/libertarians. It saddens me to see adults acting like toddlers and defending the man that set them up and abandoned them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @05:34AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dalek on Sunday April 30, @11:40PM (16 children)
There aren't fifty million liberals who want to kill Runaway. Those fears are unfounded. I am aware of only one person who is actually trying to cause harm to Runaway, and that is the creep who ran the aristarchus account. Nearly everyone else, regardless of their political views, condemned that behavior and supported punishing aristarchus. But one batshit crazy person is not the same as fifty million liberals, and is hardly representative of what liberals think or want.
I'm not proposing that anything be done about Runaway. I am sincerely concerned about his mental health. His comments aren't a direct threat, however. But tolerance doesn't mean that I sit back and indulge his fantasies or pretend that this is a simple difference of opinion. No, I'm going to tell him that what he's saying is awful. It's not a simple difference of opinion like me arguing with you about what is an appropriate level of economic regulation. You might disagree with my views, but Runaway's views are objectively wrong and truly loony. When he expresses those views, it's appropriate to condemn them. When he discusses his paranoid delusions, it's appropriate to tell him that he's not being rational and that his paranoid delusions are lunacy. I fail to see why you might have a problem with this.
Lawless protests should be punished. That includes January 6, the protests in Portland and Seattle, and the truckers in Canada. There have to be consequences for breaking the law, and ideology of those breaking the law shouldn't change that.
While I think Obama did a decent job, I generally do agree with you on this matter. Congress is horribly broken, too. Having must-pass votes on massive bills that nobody has a chance to read is no way to govern. I know that you want there to be a high bar to pass new laws. That's exactly how Congress is supposed to work, where bills have to pass through committee, pass two houses and perhaps be subjected to many amendments along the way, and then become law either by the president signing them into law or Congress overriding the veto. It's a lot easier to sneak questionable things into rushed legislation than into bills that are properly vetted by committees and by both houses of Congress. Our leaders in Congress are truly awful, and we need to do better there, too. But I certainly am not looking forward to another Biden vs. Trump general election. Ron DeSantis is not the answer, either.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @01:14AM (15 children)
You already introduced a subjective component, interpreting a conditional statement as an absolute one. Here, it was quite clear that he was speaking of this enormous harm in response to a hypothetical enormous provocation ("a future with slavery in it looks pretty damned bleak"). The real mental health question would be how does he determine that these dire circumstances are near enough at hand to issue such a dire warning? Seems pretty thin to me though there are a lot of authoritarians out there.
It's the same with the January 6 protesters. They were protested for a point of view that had already bombed harshly in the courts. Sure, if they really had solid evidence of a fraudulent election, then storming the Capitol in the way they did would be reasonable and effective. But they didn't.
You're attacking the wrong part of the logic chain.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Monday May 01, @03:19AM (14 children)
That's twice that you're used the argument with the form of:
1) X would be a reasonable action if Y is true
2) Y isn't even remotely true
3) Therefore, there is no threat of X
The problem is that Y doesn't actually have to be true for X to occur. If enough people believe that Y is true, whether it is or not, then they may cause X to occur anyway. Y is a sufficient condition, not a necessary condition.
To give you an example of why this is wrong, let's say the following:
X = the Soviet Union launched a nuclear attack against the United States
Y = the United States has launched a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union
This was a real problem during the Cold War. Even if there is exactly zero chance of the United States launching a nuclear attack against the Soviet Union, it does not guarantee that the Soviet Union would not use nuclear weapons. In fact, there was a very real risk of a false alarm leading to an exchange of nuclear weapons. The false alarm could be the result of such things as misinterpreting radar data or equipment failure. The result would be that they assume they were under attack, initiate what they believe was a retaliatory nuclear strike, and actually end up starting a nuclear war.
That cause of the false alarm would be different in your version of this argument. Instead, there are bad actors who are actively trying to convince people that Y is true for their own personal gain such as political power or monetary profit. Fact checking has been ineffective, and there are a lot of people who distrust fact checkers. Even massive censorship cannot guarantee that people will not wrongly believe that Y is occurring. Moreover, actively trying to convince people that Y is false might actually cause people to believe that Y is true. There is no reliable way to completely prevent people from falsely believing Y.
Although Y is not true, the risk of a false alarm is very real. As long as that remains the case, if there are people who are willing and able to carry out X, then the threat of X is also very real. That is why X is a concern, and why your logic is flawed. People like Runaway would not be preparing for X if they did not already believe there was a high probability of Y being true. Because the risk of a false alarm of Y cannot be fully mitigated, then it is logical to also address X.
Incidentally, if you've read my responses to Runaway, you'll note that I am not only critical of his desire to carry out X, but also about his belief in Y. Both of these are mental health issues. I do not believe it is healthy for Runaway to want X to happen, and he has stated that he would like it to occur. His belief in Y, which is paranoid and inconsistent with reality, is also very concerning.
My point is that because it is impossible to fully mitigate that people will falsely believe Y, we must also take the threat of X seriously. You can fill in the blanks about what X and Y are.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @06:11AM (13 children)
This basic bit of logic doesn't rule out that any of us could be a menace, thus X could occur for you too. Instead, we default in a situation where we have no evidence of threat to not being a threat.
So what should we be doing about scary people like you, dalek?
What is "Y" here. For example, Runaway speaks of it as:
Let's look at a real world manifestation of that. Title IX was used by the Obama administration to create a weird unconstitutional witch hunting court [reason.com] in colleges which receive public funding:
In other words, an unaccountable bureaucrat wrote a letter which then morphed into a coercion of universities to adopt weak legal processes for sexual assault cases, including suspension of due process, an illegal low threshold for evidence, and forcing crimes into civil court. This is naked authority by force. Colleges were forced to comply by the stranglehold that federal government had over their funding. Having said that, a fair number of colleges had their own Quislings who were just fine with that state of affairs and eagerly contributed to the problem.
Here's more of the abuses [reason.com] in question. Notice that it took a Trump official to reverse this gross injustice.
There's more where that came from.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Monday May 01, @07:21AM (10 children)
There is no one-size-fits-all version of authoritarianism. It comes in many different forms. Sometimes it's the end result of a process that starts with good intentions. Other times, the issue is that the ends cannot justify the means.
Many liberals view conservatives as authoritarian. They are concerned that banning abortion is part of a slippery slope to roll back many other freedoms. They are concerned that many conservatives want to establish Christian principles in law. They are concerned that border security is already seriously violating people's rights.
Let's talk about border security. It's one thing to stop someone at an actual port of entry to verify that they're actually authorized to enter the country. It's reasonable to verify that they're not bringing contraband into the country and that they pay any duty that they owe. That's reasonable. However, border security has gone far beyond that, where Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) claims the authority to stop people and verify they are legally in the country within 100 miles of a border or port of entry. That's a massive expansion of power, especially when ports of entry include airports with inbound international flights. Border security is an important issue for many conservatives, but the means to accomplish it are authoritarian. You shouldn't be able to suspend the Constitution within 100 miles of a border or port of entry.
What's the correct response to an unjust law? What's the correct response when you view an authority as illegitimate?
Runaway's comments have made it very clear that he considers violence and mass murder an appropriate response. The means he supports to accomplish his goals are wrong. It's one thing when combatants are killed on a battlefield. But he goes far beyond killing people who are engaged in combat. He's said he would like to kill all progressives. Obviously he's not directly doing the killing, but he has stated he supports killing all progressives. That's mass murder. That's wrong, and it's not something you should be defending or trying to justify.
That is not the correct response to authoritarianism. There's a difference between civil disobedience and lawlessness. Civil disobedience means following the law except the portions of the law that are unjust. There is precedent for this throughout history. In the Bible, Jesus followed the law ("Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's.") except when it was unjust. Martin Luther King didn't ignore the law and violate it whenever he wanted. There was plenty of civil disobedience, but it involved refusing to follow laws that were unjust. I strongly support jury nullification, which is effectively another form of civil disobedience. Juries should refuse to convict people when the law is unjust or the legal process is unfair.
You have a problem with the law? Fine. There are lots of ways to change it. Vote out elected officials who create bad laws. Circulate petitions to get those laws on the ballot If you have standing, sue and request the courts strike down the law. If you're on a jury, use your power as a juror to nullify the law. Refuse to follow unjust laws. Exercise your freedom of speech to inform people and to protest against unjust laws. And yes, refusing to follow unjust laws is legitimate, too.
The example you cite is a legitimately elected president lawfully appointing an official, and that official lawfully exercising his authority to change a policy. Don't you think that's very different from the lawlessness Runaway is supporting?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 01, @01:31PM (9 children)
To the contrary, they all tend to be one-size-fits-all. They just disagree on implementation and authority.
Keep in mind the subject of this journal - the principle argument is that tolerance is a sort of "peace treaty" which when abrogated, implies that the other side(s) can and must act in response in ways that would normally be wrong morally. Runaway's statements fit in that constraint - if 50 million progressives are mass enslaving the rest of the US, then their killing though wrong is an appropriate response to the end of tolerance.
My take is that there are several ways this could play out. The various authoritarian-leaning groups may eventually cool down - my take is that a lot of present day turmoil is driven by the stress of labor competition from the developing world combined with poor policy responses in the US. Second, that one or more groups cross the line and start attacking each other for real. I think some of the organizers of the January 6 protest may have attempted to provoke law enforcement into a battle (which would have crossed the line into insurrection for me). The scale and duration of such a conflict is beyond me at present, but it could eventually result in a civil war.
This is a sound argument, but there's a but. "Tolerance is not a moral precept." To apply morality to it is to miss the point of the argument.
Instead of pointless complaining about a potential future conflict that probably won't follow a moral path, let's look at preventative maintenance. My take is that there's several big things that would forestall any sort of large scale conflict: maintain equal treatment under the law, especially by identifiable ethnicity - this helps prevent balkanization [wikipedia.org]; reduce corruption - prevents what's happening now in Russia, for example; reduce regulation - especially the misapplication of one-size-fits-all law (minimum wage laws have helped devastate Puerto Rico which is greatly poorer than mainland US, resulted in about half the population immigrating to the US) and laws that aggressively harm economic/societal progress (the pharmaceutical gamble is a good example of this, all that regulation and it's still a lottery ticket [soylentnews.org] whether you get a viable drug); and sensible compromises on big conflict topics (immigration, crime and police, taxation and government spending, meddling in schools and personal lives, etc).
Finally, people should chill a bit. Runaway didn't go anywhere with his argument for when killing 50 million liberals was justified. But it was in response to other needlessly provocative arguments. Too often I read arguments about various groups doing the mean things. After all, the very first sentence of the journal is:
There's not much point about complaining about tolerating the intolerance, when you're part of the problem. No tolerance existed in the first place so it couldn't be turned off for alleged intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @05:34PM (8 children)
^
That is why so few bother engaging khalliw, at the end he just repeats his opinion like he just proved simething.
"No tolerance existed in the first place so it couldn't be turned off for alleged intolerance."
He just lives in a different reality where the KKK are ackshually democrats and J6 was some rowdy protesters. Khallow is a pure propaganda account, no care for discussion beyond a platform to repost their screed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:02AM (7 children)
That's a big reason I quote. Here, the telling line is
The intolerance in that quote is self-evident. When someone is this foaming in the mouth at "conservatives", they're intolerant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @05:04PM (6 children)
Sulk all you want, you're the one avoiding simple facts so you can preserve your precious world view. Thought you weren't a conservative, better check your mask it seems to be slipping!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @11:31PM (5 children)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:48AM
The facts have been repeatedly mentioned, khallow. You have just consistently refused, or been unable, to recognize them. You have been spanked. You can stop trying to argue, now. You have lost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @05:08PM (3 children)
Playing dumb is not a good look, just makes you look dumb or sociopathic. We all know you're not THAT dumb, so that leaves slightly dim sociopath.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:11PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:46PM (1 child)
Calling out fascists has no blowback, unless the fascists gain full power and then you'll start hunting down your detractors. You don't have yo go full fascist tho, so many options for you khallow!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @05:33AM
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @11:50AM (1 child)
Why does this keep coming up, raised by khallow? Is this what put an end to his Wingman business? The accusations of rape? (Kind of a Trumpy thing, after all) And the kangaroo court at a campus, where of course conservative young men are cancelled. More and more, I bethinks the man to be guilty, by means of a preponderance of unsolicited whinging.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 18, @07:28AM
The very first reply was
Seems a lot of bad faith arguments out there - I'm both complaining too much and not enough. But I'm sure that with enough help from the stupidest people on the internet, I'll get the right levels of complaining on these weighty topics. BTW, have you considered doing a YouTube video on bungee jumping with piano wire? It'd be a good look for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @10:53PM (14 children)
Holy shit! You really think that sleazeball was a decent president?? You're as warped as Runaway! We haven't had a "decent" president since LBJ, and even that is a big stretch! Nixon/Humphrey was the beginning of the end...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:05AM (13 children)
Yes. Slick Willy wins first prize here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @04:38AM (12 children)
Ah ok, I didn't notice the sarcasm there, sorry 'bout that...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @11:33PM (11 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @05:56AM (10 children)
Right, if you actually believe it, that would make you cynical. Clinton is the same sleaze as Trump (He's not Slick Willy for nothing). They are still joined at the hips
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:13PM (9 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @08:33PM (8 children)
Hardly! He cooked the books, bailed out Wall Street, bought a line of credit from China, and gave us NAFTA, which fucked over Mexico's economy. And American inflation was roaring near the end of his term. The mild crash of 1999/2000 was Clinton's doing, not Bush's. Crooked as a three dollar bill. You're just believing what the tabloids are telling you. Johnson was far more responsible, and gave us better social services, and a decent space program, which Nixon and Reagan tanked soon afterwords
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @08:40PM (7 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @03:09AM (6 children)
Ah, so now you revert to the old "everybody else was doing it" gag like that makes it okay. And then with all the cooked books you try to claim Clinton did it better because your phony "debt" appeared to shrink in the media polls. Please, pull the other one. At least you banker servants are non partisan. Your displayed naïveté is so very revealing... can't tell if it's for real, or if you're just spreading bullshit intentionally
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @06:19AM (5 children)
No, I'm making the obvious point that Clinton's accounting wasn't any more magical than anyone else's accounting in this stretch. The financial situation at the end of 2000 is more than just an artifact of Clinton accounting. Thus, Slick Willy despite his numerous and glaring flaws, and his illegal activities is still one of the best presidents of the past fifty years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @02:29AM (4 children)
Truly insane to believe such tabloid tripe. Like so many, you definitely fell for his "Slickness" and the media's projection of him
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08, @03:42AM (3 children)
Tabloid tripe that happens to be true. The state of the US budget is public knowledge and has nothing to do with how slick Clinton was.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:59AM (2 children)
Not so.. You just like to believe comfortable lies. Little can be done about that
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08, @06:36AM (1 child)
What are the lies here? Because this is sounding a lot like those creepy Putin apologists [soylentnews.org] who keeps ranting about mean Western propaganda.
For example, is it not true that the US budget came close to breaking even in 2000 and that was at the end of a considerable period of economic expansion that lasted most of Clinton's administration? If not, then what is the truth?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:02AM
Then the surpluses were gutted by the Bush tax cuts and massive increases in defense spending.
Republicans keep giving new tax breaks to the wealthy and big corporations. Sorry, we can't afford 'em. The wealthy will just have to get by with the same tax cuts everyone else gets when we cut taxes for the lowest income tax brackets. It's just too expensive to give special tax breaks to the wealthy and large corporations, and we can't afford it.
We can't afford to pay for more wars overseas, nor can we keep paying for developing new military technology. We'll just have to get by with the massive stockpile of arms that we already have.
We're also spending over 20 billion dollars each year for customs and border patrol. Sorry, we can't afford to pay for unconstitutional immigration checkpoints. We'll just have to get by with following the Constitution and only putting customs and border patrol officers on the actual border and at ports of entry. We just can't afford anything else, especially not more physical barriers along the southern border.
Republicans also want to add more restrictions for the various programs they refer to as welfare, adding even more requirements to verify that people are working. Enforcing these restrictions means that we have to spend money and hire more people to handle the extra administrative burden. Sorry, we can't afford to do so. We'll just have to get by with enforcing the restrictions that already exist on welfare. It's too expensive to add new regulations, so we'll just have to stick to the existing regulations, many of which were actually passed under President Clinton.
My point is that so-called fiscal conservatives aren't serious about balancing the budget. It's nothing more than an excuse to eliminate funding to programs that Democrats support. If they want Democrats to agree to cuts, the so-called fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party have to be willing to cut some of their own priorities. Reducing the deficit in a substantial way means that House Republicans are going to have to give up some of the things they want, too.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @08:50PM
Ground shifting under your feet? Kids these days make no sense? Are you turing into an old (racist) fart, Runaway? Maybe some one should punch you in the face. Or, alternatively, you could beg for forgiveness. Apologize to aristarchus.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @03:59AM
We've had more than an instant for those things to work their magic and there's been a huge amount of progress since. We can dial back on the intensity and deal with bigger problems, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @05:12AM (7 children)
I disagree with the liberals above. No, it's not all right to be white, because it's not all right to sexually identify as a "race" when there is no such thing as "race."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @05:27AM (1 child)
Ah yes, the Rachel Dolezal defense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @02:18PM
Why do I give a flying fuck about the racialist insanity of the bourgeoisie?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @10:06AM
There is no such thing a "white". Race is a social construct, by slave-owning southerners, and "white" is a back-formation that only means "not-black". As in, "At least I am not." But these "whites" are, like Runaway1956, the most deplorable and recondite of the human race. Yes, they are not a separate race, more a collage of fuckwits, but since they do try to make it about race, and fail, they are idiots and assholes. Consider Runaway1956, says he's not racist, but he is a motherfucking racist through and through. So to identify, as Runaway does, as "white" and "male" (can conservatives even define what a Man is?), straight (questionable, naval service), Christian (never seen any evidence of this), conservative (not really), is to be the victim of fake news, fake victimhood, and really just fake existence. Does Runaway1956 actually exist? Or is he just a janrinok sockpuppet, a EuroCon's fantasy of an American Trump supporter? We would need something concrete, like a real name and home address, to take Runaway seriously. Otherwise, he is just khallow-quality fluff.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @10:14AM (3 children)
Isn't this exactly what got Scott Adams in trouble? Yes, all lives matter, like all people matter, at a feminist protest.
https://www.voanews.com/a/media-drop-dilbert-after-creator-s-black-hate-group-remark-/6979434.html [voanews.com]
Voice of America, people, the propaganda wing that fights against Russian shills like Runaway.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @11:50AM (2 children)
WTF is up with all the spam mods? Admin cannot possibly think this will solve the problems of their abysmal community management, can they?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @02:07PM (1 child)
Probably they think that a sufficient number of spam mods will make a thing called the "white race" begin to exist.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @08:53PM
Spam modding your way to racial purity? Sounds like a Eugenetics program! Um, editores? Que pasa? Cui Bono?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday April 29, @08:30AM (4 children)
The people telling you otherwise are advertising pillows to you. It’s also why you see ‘erotica’ in public places.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @10:17AM (3 children)
I think you are on to something. The fact that they find people in women’s clothing reading to be inherently sexual combined with the fact that most librarians are women (who happen to wear women’s clothing) could be the entire reason why conservatives seem to want to ban libraries so bad. They really need to stop watching the “naughty librarian” videos. Those seem to have gone to their heads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @10:13PM (2 children)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @10:26AM (1 child)
Ogle only offends because their daughter is actually their son, and verse visa. Runaway is very worried.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @12:44AM
wat
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @06:14AM
and the Dutch!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Saturday April 29, @02:25AM
Tolerance is not a moral precept [extranewsfeed.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @02:41AM
It's all about the dopamine. People do what feels "good"
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @10:24AM (41 children)
She could have had some influence, if only she had supported allies. But the trannies were too much, and aristarchus was not to her liking, so we end up here. Say goodnight, Azuma Hazuki!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 29, @08:44PM (39 children)
Cry harder, Ari :D You earned your suffering by playing dirty. There is a reason I stuck to the rules.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @08:57PM (38 children)
Thinking about a screenplay, "The Passion of Aristarchus", going to bring Mel Gibson in on it. And Kevin Sorbo, "Aristarchus is not Dead!" Third installment: "It's OK to be White, and an intolerant Bigot" by Runaway1956, with libretto by Paul.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by dalek on Saturday April 29, @09:51PM (37 children)
I have a better idea. How about you accept responsibility for your actions? You broke the rules. You doxxed Runaway. You have been spamming SN relentlessly for over a year. Nobody forced or coerced you to do any of those things. You chose to do those things out of your own free will.
I just got done ripping Runaway because he doesn't want to be held accountable for his actions. My post is https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=55105&page=1&cid=1303941#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]. That applies to you, too, aristarchus.
The Ancient Greeks believed in the rule of law, and I believe Aristotle had plenty to say about it. It means that no person is above the law. The problem is that you think you're above the law. You think that doxxing is okay and that you shouldn't face consequences. You think that you should be able to post spam in other people's journals whenever you want, and nobody should prevent you from doing so. Account holders who follow the rules only get 10 mod points per day. You seem to think that you are special and should be able to create as many sock puppets as you want, so that you have far more than 10 mod points per day. Your problem is that you believe that rules should apply to Runaway but not to you.
Jim Carrey's character in Liar, Liar explained this quite well: "STOP BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!"
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @09:54AM (36 children)
You really need to just fuck off, dalek, for the sake of humanity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @10:21PM (35 children)
Would that you would take your own medicine, Ari. The shadows are getting long now and it's well past the time you should have taken your final bow and exited the stage.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @10:48AM (34 children)
Azuma is going to run away. aristarchus has not yet begun to fight! You ain't seem nothing yet, boyo! Destruction will rain down upon SoylentNews! The Front Page articles will become more and more boring! Comments will continue to be lame, and if possible, become more so. We are all but players upon the internet stage, and, sound and fury, janrinok excuses, signifying, nothing. But the curtain has not yet fallen!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 02, @02:06PM (33 children)
And after more than a year - you have achieved nothing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @11:11PM (32 children)
On the contrary, all the spam modding has achieved nothing. He's still posting, and you can't stop him. just makes the spam mod worthless against real spam. You're going to have to take the next step and delete his posts to have any effect at all. Just make damn sure you have the right guy when you do!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday May 03, @06:46AM (31 children)
This is not a statement of site policy - this is my own personal view.
I fail to understand this statement. Spam mods do exactly what they are meant to do no matter how many or few are used. They indicate to others that the comment are off-topic, irrelevant, and repetitive. Community members can filter them out easily by changing their personal settings. The real problem is that so many want to be spoon fed exactly what they want to read - they cannot be bothered to modify their settings.
But you wonder why I sometimes reply to his comments - or yours for that matter. Because if they go unchallenged they become the 'truth' as we witnessed a few months ago. Anybody can create an account using any email address that they choose - but several people asked when we we going to allow new members to join? We have never stopped them. They had simply read statements made by an AC claiming that we had. All lies, of course, but if they are not countered they now have a tendency to become the 'truth'. The AC in particular may still post in the journals, but he has not achieved a single one of his many stated threats, aims or intentions. That he can still post is something that we allow, not something that we cannot stop. We also let him waste his efforts creating a new account from time to time, to see if he has changed his ways. He hasn't and will probably never do so.
The willing acceptance of ignorance, which started in the USA but is now rapidly spreading around the world, means that people simply believe what they read on the screen in front of them. They have stopped looking for the truth - they would rather read falsehoods which reinforce their existing incorrect perceptions, or simply require less effort to believe.
We have introduced a 'human captcha' for those accounts that look like sock puppets, and this has been completely successful in preventing the creation of a huge majority of them or removing the remainder quickly when they are identified. We treat all sock puppets the same - we are not only looking at stopping those created by certain individuals.
You are also wrong in your claim that the only thing we can do is delete his posts. Not so - but I do not think that anyone wants to consider the alternatives at the moment; banning all AC posting for example, or closing the journals to anyone who has not got an account. Neither of these actions would serve this site well but would also solve the problem. Removing ALL non-account-holding ACs would not affect the site's operation - not a single non-account-holding AC is contributing to the financial support of the site and those who have an account can already post as AC anyway. Many ACs are just using it as a free site for crap posting in journals that have been created by those who DO have accounts. Personally, I believe that ACs do have a useful role to play on this site - the fact that so many of them abuse their position is what may, sometime in the future, result in their own removal. That would be a shame but it is hardly a problem that cannot be resolved.
It reminds me of people who commit suicide. We try to dissuade them and to help them enjoy life as a valuable person but, at the end of the day, if they are determined to kill themselves then eventually they will be successful in their achieving their wishes.
This site is built on the discussion of topics that require an open mind and an acceptance of things that can be proven to be true to the limits of our understanding at that time. Not challenging lies and falsehoods is anathema to most of us.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @10:49AM (4 children)
So, counter-lies, or alternative facts? I know from personal experience that if you attempt to sign up for a SoylentNews account using any of the well-known anonymous email services, you will be taken for aristarchus and banned before you can even get started. If you utilize other security services, such as TOR or a VPN, your IP will be banned, your account punished, and very bad mojo sent your way. SN has become a toxic website, full of hives of scum and villiany and racism and racist libertarianism. When are you going to allow new members to join? When will the emergency be over, Mr. Janrinok?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday May 03, @12:12PM (2 children)
Listen - the account is disabled - not banned. You receive an email explaining what has happened, why it has happened and asking that you contact admin. If you do so the account can be re-enabled. If you don't contact admin, or simply complain and whinge like YOU usually do, then the account will remain disabled. How many people do you think are using your method of creating accounts? Over the last 8000 accounts, how many behave like you? None. You are the only person creating accounts the way you do it. You are simply being stupid. After several hundred attempts a normal person would be catching on to the fact that perhaps they are doing something wrong or unusual about how they appear on the site.
Your emails are unique.
Your attitude is unique.
Your complaining is unique.
Your speech patterns are unique.
Everybody else can work out who you are - but you just can't understand it.
But the sad thing is you HAVE TO BE unique, because otherwise nobody would be aware that you are 'beating the system' or leading an AC revolt, neither of which is actually true.. So you HAVE to declare your hand. You want people to know that it is you. Well, we do. And the thought of just not being noticed is what really frustrates and annoys you.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @09:57AM (1 child)
Oh, grate, a distinction without a difference. 600+ accounts that are, um banned? But that is only by one person? So there are many, many more accounts that admin (janrinok) has seen fit to strangle in the crib. Hera tried that with Hercules, did not end so well.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 05, @11:41AM
Perhaps a dozen - with 28000+ accounts in total that hardly seems like many. But perhaps you would care to name some of the others that you know of? With 'many, many more accounts' to choose from can you identify 10 of them?, Or maybe 5? Or are you just lying like you usually do?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday May 03, @12:17PM
The majority are using VPNs or TOR - they do not get banned.
You can use an anonymous email service - you just have to contact us to get it your new account enabled. It is, in effect, a captcha.
New accounts are being successfully created all the time.
What emergency are you referring to? Sock puppetry remains banned by the site, but that isn't an emergency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @05:48AM (25 children)
Oh please! Don't be such a drama queen! It's nothing but shtick. The weak minded people that take it seriously are the problem, not the poster. His greatest and only desired achievement is keeping your attention, which he has proven extremely successful. You fuel his fire, and he points and laughs, all great entertainment for the rest of us, so, you know, by all means, please continue
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday May 04, @06:37AM (24 children)
He has already in the past disrupted the main stories extensively, he has been the main cause of over half of our membership deciding to leave, he has posted CP, he has doxxed somebody, he has created almost 700 sock puppets in an attempt to continue this sort of behaviour, and he has stated under his own name that he wishes to close the site down.
I am not the one with the mental problems, nor am I being a "drama queen". Problems that are ignored tend not to go away, but get worse.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:57AM
None of janrinok's accusations are true. SN lost more than half of its membership due to really bad community management, and heavy-handed censorship, starting with the Mighty Buzzard and continuing under jan.
Exhibit One. Janrinok is the one with the mental problems, paranoid schizophrenia, if I am not mistaken, and a drama queen syndrome. Someone, under their "real name", has threatened to shut down SoylentNews? Oh, dear! Have you tried ignoring him, and not feeding the troll?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:57AM (11 children)
That is a really specific claim. How could you possibly have quantified that?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday May 04, @11:24AM (10 children)
They tell us - particularly when we ask them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @07:00PM (1 child)
Half of them? Or just you, khallow, and Runaway1956?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 05, @05:52AM
The three names you have just mentioned are still on this site so my statement applies to none of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04, @09:53PM (7 children)
What is the sample size relative to the population? I'm not doubting that people have left because of him. But hanging thousands of users on one individual seems a bit hyperbolic without more to go with.
Also, I'd like to appeal that spam mod since asking questions like that in no way fits the definition of spam according to the moderation guidelines.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 05, @05:50AM (5 children)
Which spam moderation, AC? You are anonymous, remember?
I did not say that the actions of some ACs where the only cause of the loss of membership - there are of course others, including the fact that we just went through several years of a pandemic, job insecurity and financial hardship.
However, it was the most repeated reason given from the responses that I have had. People complained that it was the personal attacks against people for having expressing their opinion, the disruption to discussions and the widespread off-topic crap posting that had resulted in them being no longer interested in remaining on this site. Many also gave other reasons too, but it remains the "main reason" quoted. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is the same as reported by other social media sites. Many of the giants in social media are struggling with the very same problem.
I have not kept the responses (they are no longer on our site so why would I?) so I cannot count them. I am not going to make up a figure just to provide a convenient response to your question. I simply complied with their requests to remove any personally identifiable data associated with their account (signatures, web site links, links to professional bodies etc).
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @08:17AM (4 children)
The one with my previous question (#1304693). I thought that was obvious from context with the threaded nature of this discussion board, but I guess not.
And I didn't claim that you said one individual was the only cause. I specifically quoted your language citing him as "the main cause of over half of our membership deciding to leave." That is a specific claim and a claim that potentially covers thousands, or even tens of thousands, of people. It's fine you don't have any evidence for your claim other than your memory of unspecified messages. I just thought, especially in the light of how most users leave discussion boards in my experience running boards both small and huge, that someone making a claim like that would have more to offer than their vague gesturing. However, they might not given the state of discussion anymore.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @10:00AM (3 children)
I, too, thought the request was unambiguous. Has Janrinok lost it so much as not to understand a simple spam recision request? Perhaps he has. Oh, well.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @10:31AM (2 children)
Spam mods on the requests to consider spam mods. What are the odds that this comment will also garner a spam mod? Then we will be three deep into the Spam Mod recursion. Circling the drain. Going down the Vortex Math Amniotic Thought reading sucking hole that is the front page.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:11AM (1 child)
I probably should get a spam mod as well, just for good measure, and to not feel left out.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @09:31PM
Ouch! "-1 Redundant" may be appropriate, but it is hardly sufficient. Where is my damn spam mod?
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @06:07AM
Welcome to being treated as aristarchus for daring to question SN leadership. Fascism on display, always starts with some ausible deniability. Or are you just a troll?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @02:00AM (10 children)
On the contrary, he is fueled by the attention he craves that you give, without which he would get bored and fade away. It's the simple things you refuse to acknowledge.
Whatever, that's entertainment, and we are amused
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 05, @06:08AM (9 children)
You haven't demonstrated that statement to be true. Nor does it explain why he posted CP onto a front page story under another of his sock puppet accounts, spammed specific individuals by name (16 in one story alone) over an extended period of time, or continue to carry out personal attacks rather than argue the topic under discussion. Why would he try to instigate an "AC rebellion" in a previous poll to "...take over the front page."? He has no intention of going away.
Indeed he has stated his intention many times over several years, while even some of his former allies have distanced themselves from what he has said.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @10:04AM
Who posted CP? And what is "CP", anyway? Who "spammed" individuals? (I am not sure I understand what that even means.) And where on the internet did the bad man touch you, janrinok? We need full details. Might be rough on your PTSD, but justice demands that you lay all the details out. Again. And Again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @05:30AM (7 children)
How can I? Until you stop responding we'll never know, but you have to take the first step, before you can dismiss what I'm saying
Because... you always respond, without fail. Now, if you can delete his "kiddie porn" and doxxing, you can obviously delete anything else you don't like, and not say a word to, or about him. Deny all you want, your attention is the gasoline on the fire. It's that simple
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday May 06, @06:28AM (6 children)
So you advocate censorship and just deleting things without even attempting to explain why? I don't think that is a good idea. Nor is our ability to delete things as all-encompassing as you are suggesting. We aim to explain all of our actions, preferably directly via email but here in the comments if we have no alternative ways of doing so. The proof of this are the printouts in comments of various emails to different sock puppet accounts which, unsurprisingly, always appear to end up in one person's possession.
As I have explained elsewhere, if you allow a lie to go unchallenged it is believed by some. Many people simply believe what they see written down in a comment. The claims that we were/are blocking new members is complete rubbish, but others wanted to know when we would be allowing new users to join again. New members are actually joining regularly.
Similarly, the claim that proton email is blocked couldn't be further from the truth. I have 3 proton email accounts, the site itself has 4 more. We are considering the possibility of using proton mail to handle all our site'e email needs. One of our staff has worked for proton mail - and may still do so, I just haven't bothered to ask. Whenever I have contacted proton they have been friendly, understanding and cooperative. Hardly an email provider that we are seeking to ban.
I am sure that your advice is well intentioned. However, you cannot show any evidence that ignoring a person means that they will change their ways. It might have been true 20 years ago but social media all over the world knows that it is not true any longer. It is no more true than claiming one can believe all news reporting on the television, although that too might once have been far more believable than it is now. Misinformation is a problem that all common media face today.
I happen to believe that if more people stood up to him he would begin to see that he isn't welcome here. Allowing him to continue unchallenged is just as dangerous, if not more so, than your own suggestion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @08:13PM (5 children)
Never said that. Just follow up with a generic reason why (CP, doxxing, etc) in the comments without speaking to or about him directly. Your attention is his fuel.
That's the believer's fault, not the liar's.
Never came from me. A simple statement saying otherwise is good enough.
Fine just say so in a generic statement. If people want to keep believing the lies, that is their own problem, not yours. Don't feed the trolls
Only because you won't ignore them. Your defensiveness has the opposite of its intended effect.
Just the opposite, he knows he has you by the cajones when you respond personally. You are just increasing his audience, "no such thing as 'bad press'" and all that. Widespread attention is the kind of thing that keeps people like Trump on the tabloids' front page, similarly it just encourages ari to keep posting here, because you provide an audience.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday May 06, @09:34PM (4 children)
So you are advocating a course of action that can only be proven if I choose to take it. You have no previous proof to rely on, it appears that you cannot demonstrate any documented historical cases where it has worked, only perhaps anecdotal reports, and I just have to accept that you know best? It might have worked once upon a time - but you cannot show that for some reason - and the world has moved on. It has become more polarised. It is more important now to counter mis- and disinformation. If you look more closely at most of my responses they ARE refuting what he has said - and I am providing proof that he is wrong in his allegations.
Let us assume that I follow your advice. You are suggesting that we just give him free rein to say whatever lies he wishes and then he will go away? After how long? A week, a month, a year? And during that time we do not counter any of his claims which we know from recent experience some people are believing. I don't see how that will improve the site in general. It might make your enjoyment of the journals a little better, but that is not what we provide the journals for. But if you just want to have a more decent place to have discussion, get an account and then post as AC. You will have far more control over what you must view. Or you can create your own journals, discuss any topic that appeals to you, and run them any way you like.
I do not accept your claim, your logic, and the fact that all you are going on is some internal belief that you know better than anyone else.
But I cannot see you changing your unsubstantiated beliefs, and you cannot show me anything to convince me to change mine, so I guess that we have come to the end of this discussion.
I disagree - he is now fairly harmless and that is the reason he is squealing so much and making so many false claims. He has to attempt to discredit me in order for him to have a change in how we now operate. That causes me no problems whatsoever. I come here for discussions, debate and reasoned arguments - he is merely providing an opportunity for me. He finds it very difficult to create and use any of his sock puppets. They are being detected before they can do much harm - which is exactly what we were hoping to achieve.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @09:47PM (3 children)
Have it your way then... Like I said, your little war provides great entertainment, so by all means...
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @11:58AM (2 children)
I loves me some janrinok attention! Like, if I create an account, with oblivious clues, and then he makes a big production out of banning me, again! Priceless. But soon, I feel, he will ban all posting on SoylentNews, because of the legal liability of not censoring oblivious copyright infringement.
aristarchus
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @03:22PM (1 child)
Greg, part of your problem is that you never change your tactics. You've very predictable. Pretty much everyone can spot which comments you post, even when you don't sign them. You really should try a change of pace sometimes to keep janrinok guessing what you'll do next.
I suggest that you try leaving your mom's basement, that you get a job, and that you actually take a shower. Instead of denying obvious things like the fact that you doxxed Runaway, you'd really confuse everyone if you admitted it and apologized. Expressing gratitude to Janrinok instead of whining constantly would really catch people off guard. Nobody will be expecting you to do any of those things, so they'll be confused and won't know what to expect next.
You really should expand your playbook and add in new tactics. You're too predictable, like a football team with a playbook that only consists of running the ball between the tackles. Just like any competent defense will completely shut down that offense, it's way too easy to recognize your comments and shut you down with spam mods.
Don't worry, though. If you choose not to change your tactics, I've still got four mod points left, which I'm saving to spam mod more of your shitposts.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @04:49PM
So amurrican to use 'violence' with absolute confidence of zero errors, you abusive cunts are the real problem and not a whiny liberal like aristarchus. Your lies and bad actions are ruining your country, top kek edge lord.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06, @10:49PM
Can the liberals even define what a trans person is, other than as not-cis-gendered, which of course means "does not conform to my diktats about how gender should be, and how testosterone is a panacea, neo-chivalry is a virtue, gynephilia is the only valid sexual orientation, androphilia is the origin of fascism, and men should be ready to fight wars for the profits of the bourgeoisie?"
I'll grant the invention of the all-volunteer army is interesting. Instead of conscription by lottery and forced birth, all we have to do is raise interest rates, and there will be plenty of volunteers.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday April 29, @04:10PM (61 children)
Let's start with the antisocial behavior person. My take on that is that he or she is merely an excuse for the group's antisocial behavior. Sooner or later, the group, member by member, grows out of the phase and the antisocial person is dropped. There's no significant issue here. On the second example, so what? Even when it happens, it's usually irrelevant and easily rebuttable. Nazis are a small sliver of the population and they're not going anywhere. And the vile acts institutionally and routinely associated with Nazism in the past have no comparable evil in any alleged negative behavior of blacks. Alternately, he could be talking about the vast collection of people and groups who are routinely labeled "nazis", but aren't. More on that later.
As to the "equal time" example, this is more a routine ploy to harvest eyeballs for a news story. Start with the facts and then present as a token counterexample, some batshit crazy. As a bonus, you might be able to get some sweet pull quotes and headlines. It will continue because people will keep reading it.
Overall, it's mundane and partly imaginary problems listed. The journal has the same problems: which genocidal fucking psychopaths are being overly tolerated? My bet is that it's all by the intolerant side. You won't get anything out of threatening to intolerate them more than you already do. More on that later. Same with "can't behave like a civilized human being". Routinely misapplied. Even when it is a problem, intolerating (such as via ostracization) such behavior can make it worse.
The second fault is that there's no rational basis for defining what intolerance should be targeted and even if there were, it's easy to set up a web of delusion so that you think you're rationally doing something, but not. I already have listed [soylentnews.org] an example of Hitler's early views on antisemitism. He already had a huge array of excuses. If these had been real, then they would have qualified. If a group actually were doing the things he claimed Jews were doing, then some sort of defensive action would be justified. But they weren't. And those imaginary threats would, decades later, justify some of the most evil acts of the 20th Century.
Third fault, intolerance tit for tat makes genuine problems worse because the intolerant are better at the game. For example, a common behavior of cults (depending on your definition of cults, sometimes this is a key part of the definition of a cult) is that they isolate their members from the rest of society. Closely related is that groups that practice intolerance commonly are much better at it than the Popperian resistance is. Here's an example of both: in nearby Montana there's a religious sect called the Church Universal and Triumphant [wikipedia.org] or CUT for short. CUT has all the typical trappings of a cult - isolationist, thinks doomsday is around the corner, and prolific preppers (bunkers all over the place).
So you have yourself a typical intolerant cult. Solution is simple, right? Intolerate them back! The problem was that even saying something unflattering about CUT was enough to get you ostracized. You didn't want to talk with them, right? What's the problem? Well, if you're running a local business or working for one (which covers a lot of non-CUT people in a tourist region), those loose lips means a good portion of the business's former customers refuse to shop there. By this perfectly legal means, CUT was able to strangle local criticism of the cult - basically limiting opposing speech to people who had nothing to lose. The intolerance only worked one way. Even if somehow the locals could maintain a system of intolerance, it would work to CUT's advantage - because a key part of maintaining a cult is isolating the members from outside ideas and information.
Engagement remains the better strategy. Being exposed to the groups that one is intolerant of shows that the basis for intolerance is a lie. The person can continue to ignore that, but I find it has an effect just the same. If you can't manage that due to lack of time or interest, ignoring the problem will work better than feeding the problem.
That leads to my fourth observation: namely that intolerance of intolerance doesn't move us in a positive direction. It's just a brazen display of hypocrisy and delusion. While those aren't the worst things ever, we don't have a desperate need for them either. How about instead of being part of the problem, let's do stuff that works?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, @06:19PM (5 children)
"That leads to my fourth observation: namely that intolerance of intolerance doesn't move us in a positive direction. It's just a brazen display of hypocrisy and delusion."
Rightwing insurrection denier wants to discuss hypocrisy and delusion. Clean your own house first broheimer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday April 29, @08:23PM (4 children)
Maybe that's what the rightwing insurrection deniers want to do. But what I want to do is something productive. Something that works. Like talking to people rather than at them.
Like here, I get the sense you might want to disagree about something?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @09:59PM (3 children)
"Maybe that's what the rightwing insurrection deniers want to do. But what I want to do is something productive."
Wow, is khallow ready to accept that the GOP instigated and defended an insurrection? For some reason I doubt it, words to khallow are just tools to push an agenda. He can't get too far into crazy land or his propaganda doesn't work, gotta keep a thin veneer of objectivity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08, @12:43AM (2 children)
GOP do what? If there was evidence of that, it would have come out by now. Democrats wouldn't be sitting on it, for example.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Monday May 08, @03:28AM (1 child)
This is a GOP problem, and you know it.
It is a fact that over 1/3 of the Republican candidates on the ballot in 2022 for major offices (U.S. representative, US senator, governor, secretary of state, and attorney general) fully denied the 2020 election: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/republicans-trump-election-fraud/ [fivethirtyeight.com].
It is a fact that Donald Trump spent weeks before, during, and after the 2020 election spreading disinformation on Twitter to claim that the election was stolen: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/24/us/politics/trump-twitter-tweets-election-results.html [nytimes.com]. Trump knew that these allegations were false, but chose to post inflammatory tweets about the election anyway. It is a fact that during the riot on January 6, for an extended period of time, Trump chose not to act to try to end the riot: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/21/jan-6-panel-trump-attack-00047130 [politico.com]. Trump was fully aware of what was occurring at the Capital but chose to avoid taking action to stop the riot. This occurred as GOP members of Congress chose to challenge electoral votes from numerous states: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/02/ted-cruz-electoral-college-challenge-453430 [politico.com].
It is a fact that the GOP had the opportunity to bar Trump from holding office after the events of January 6. Even though you refuse to accept that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection, it is a fact that Trump willingly chose not to act. Trump was impeached for the second time, but only seven of the fifty GOP senators voted to convict Trump: https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates/2021/02/13/967098840/senate-acquits-trump-in-impeachment-trial-again [npr.org]. Had Trump been convicted by the Senate, they could have barred him from holding public office in the future. They chose not to do so. It is a fact that high-ranking Republicans like Kevin McCarthy, the current Speaker of the House, knew Trump was unfit for office: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republican-kevin-mccarthy-under-fire-after-audio-shows-he-urged-trump-resign-2022-04-22/ [reuters.com]. Despite making this clear in private conversations, McCarthy did not vote to impeach Trump: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/13/cheney-10-house-republicans-trump-impeachment-00050991 [politico.com].
It is a fact that the Republican Party issued a statement defending the events of January 6, including breaking and entering into the Capitol, as legitimate political discourse: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/04/republicans-capitol-attack-legitimate-political-discourse-cheney-kinzinger-pence [theguardian.com]. This was done along with censuring Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney for serving on the Senate committee that investigated the events of January 6: https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2022/02/04/gop-leaders-approve/ [sltrib.com]. House Republicans have claimed that January 6 rioters in prison are "political prisoners" to imply that their arrest and the charges against them are illegitimate: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/03/10/jan-6-defendants-dc-jail-gop/ [washingtonpost.com].
It is a fact that election deniers have been appointed to high-ranking positions in the current Congress, including on the House Ethics and Oversight Committees: https://news.yahoo.com/numerous-election-deniers-help-lead-new-gop-congress-201012187.html [yahoo.com]. Jim Jordan, an election denier, attempted to use his position on the House Judiciary Committee to subpoena Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan prosecutor running the case for the Southern District of New York against Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/nyregion/bragg-lawsuit-jim-jordan-trump-indictment.html [nytimes.com]. This would have been using the power of the Judiciary Committee to meddle in the case against Trump.
If this was not a GOP problem, the party would not have placed so many election deniers on the ballot in 2022. If this was not a GOP problem, GOP leaders would have held Trump accountable for his actions before and during the January 6 riot, including spreading inflammatory disinformation about the election and refusing to act to stop the riot. If this was not a GOP problem, the GOP would not be claiming that people who were arrested and charged in conjunction with the riot are political prisoners, nor would they claim that the riot was "legitimate political discourse." If this was not a GOP problem, election deniers would not be serving in high-ranking positions in House committees where they can meddle in efforts to prosecute Trump for alleged criminal activity. If this was not a GOP problem, far more members of the GOP would have voted to impeach and convict Trump.
I've linked to a large amount of evidence, but even the GOP's statement that the January 6 riot was "legitimate political discourse" is enough to demonstrate the GOP's responsibility. That statement was issued by the Republican National Committee, so it does speak for the GOP.
This is not just a Donald Trump issue, despite continued denials like what you posted here and elsewhere: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=55105&cid=1305184 [soylentnews.org].
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @04:55PM
Thank you, I stopped bothering with citations because non-shills are fully aware of the GOP's fascism. Khallow just ignores citations and re-states the propaganda hoping to draw out and minimize the discussion. They are fully aware of their propaganda, the account is active on slashdot and here pushing the same politics. If he was a real libertarian the insurrection wouldn't be such a difficult concept.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 29, @08:47PM (14 children)
For someone so focused on efficiency and economy, you sure do waste a lot of words, time, and electrons saying *the exact fucking thing the original article addressed.* And your response boils down to "if you don't let me do what I want, I'll hurt you even worse." Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you little psychopath. Go take a bath in a mud pot once tourist season starts, will you?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @12:18AM (13 children)
I don't agree, but if the author did that, then why bother to write the article with that much failure already acknowledged? I notice a picture of a woman brandishing a baseball bat with the subtitle "This photo by the Degenderettes is perhaps the perfect summary of the appropriate limits of tolerance." Are we whacking intolerant people now?
Cool narrative, but I haven't hurt anyone on SN nor am about to start. And my response doesn't boil down to that. I guess we have the fantasy tale spinner Azuma today. Meds.
So sorry to disappoint.
This sort of nazi reply is why I just don't take these arguments seriously. You talk a good game, but in the end, you're just another intolerant hypocrite on the internet.
I think the government response to the January 6 protest were instructive. First, no bloodbath during the protest itself and a slow withdrawal into the Capitol. Only one person died from violence and they were particularly stupid.
Then in the post-protest period, they arrested people mostly on clearly documented (often by video) crimes. The only real complaint is how long it's taking to process everyone through the courts. This was known to be a problem from shortly after the arrests started.
This is the sort of response to intolerance that makes sense. Don't care what the beliefs are, punish them for the harm they actually do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @05:40PM (12 children)
From suddenly caring about the speed of the justice system, which has been horrible for a long time with lots of injustices you cannot be bothered to even condemn; to using the thankfully small amount of bloodshed to try and declare an insurrection as a peaceful lrotest.....
Yer a nazi khallow! Change your life or stop whining when people describe you. The GOP is literally using the Nazi's playbook, complete with CPAC nazi symbols, and you are here constantly defending or downplaying the fascists.
Only you can prevent nazi fires!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @12:02PM
The prosecution is asking for 25 years for OafKeebler Rhodes, the firearm safety instructor who shot out his own eye. Khallow should be very worried. They still are identifying and arresting insurrectionists even at this point. Got any Tik-tok videos, khallow?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @06:04AM (10 children)
Consider this example: a Michael Curzio [cnn.com], involved in the protest, was arrested eight days later and spent a considerable bit of time in jail while waiting the results of his trial:
[...]
In other words, he has already spent that six months in jail due to the trial. And his sentence was already maximized due to his past record. It wouldn't have been hard for him to spend more time in jail than the sentence he received if his past record had been more innocuous. Also, consider that he might have received a light sentence despite that (it was a plea deal to standard lesser charges) in order to clear the docket for more cases.
Was that speed of justice system just? Do you lose the right to complain about injustices either way because you haven't complained before?
You're a labeler, the laziest sort of intolerant.
Given how weak your argument is here, I think I'm right to continue said downplaying. Come up with real problems next time.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Tuesday May 09, @06:55AM (9 children)
If the January 6 rioters believe their time in pretrial detention is unreasonable, they have recourse. The sixth amendment provides for the right to a public and speedy trial. They have the right to petition the court to dismiss indictments on the grounds that their sixth amendment rights have been violated.
Here are the facts:
1) The government did admit to errors in violating the Speedy Trial Act for at least one defendant, requesting that charges be dismissed: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/rare-mistake-prosecutors-seek-dismissal-charges-against-capitol-riot-defendant-2022-03-14/ [reuters.com]
2) In some cases, defendants have waived their right to a speedy trial, and this is not uncommon. However, they can still petition judges to be released pending their trial: https://www.newsweek.com/accused-capitol-rioters-could-spend-more-year-jail-before-trial-1656894 [newsweek.com]
3) In one example, defendants associated with the Oath Keepers waived their right to a speedy trial: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oath-keepers-defendants-waive-their-speedy-trial-rights-jan-6-hearings/ [cbsnews.com]
4) The Justice Department has delayed indictments in some cases to avoid violating defendants' rights to a speedy trial: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/03/02/sedition-hunters-hundreds-jan-6-rioters-pending-fbi-arrests/11283885002/ [usatoday.com]
How many of the defendants complaining about the time spent in pretrial detention have waived their rights to a speedy trial? How many of them submitted requests to be released from pretrial detention and had them denied by judges?
Let's address the issues in Michael Curzio's case: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/57283815/united-states-v-fitchett/ [courtlistener.com]
In fact, Curzio petitioned the court to be released from pretrial detention. The court heard arguments from both Curzio and the government, and following those arguments, denied the request.
It's not like the defendants are being forced to sit in prison with no recourse. In fact, they do have recourse available to them, and Curzio exercised his rights to request that he be released. He was given the opportunity to petition to be freed from detention. The court heard his arguments and disagreed with them. It doesn't appear to me that his rights were violated.
Was anyone denied the opportunity to petition the court for a speedy trial or to be released from pretrial detention? It would be a serious problem if that happened, but I've seen no evidence that anyone was denied to petition the court regarding the sixth amendment.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday May 11, @02:46PM (8 children)
Here we go. So there's at least one real case out there.
The rest of your list is red herring, some of it rather seriously irrelevant.
In other words, this is just a weaselly bit of rhetorical questioning about which you don't know or care.
Have you actually bothered to look for said cases? Should we really consider your vision to be a reliable standard of evidence? My take is that I looked for a few minutes and found the above. Note that in the story I linked, there was no complaint about lack of a speedy trial - it was just a list of people convicted with arrest and sentencing information. I just looked for a case with a short sentence relative to the time the person stayed in detention pre-trial. That's it. And I found it easily.
My exercise here was in response to AC accusations that I was only paying attention to speed of trial because my side was being tried - I picked the above example to show that there was an actual problem not merely a khallow problem. I don't know the scale of it nor did I make this remark to show some sort of singling out of the protesters - we've been suffering through such unconstitutional delays for a long time as the AC noted, and it's not likely to change any time soon. I just noted that trial duration was the sole serious complaint, that's it. And well it is.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Thursday May 11, @08:42PM (7 children)
You've found one case where the pretrial detention could have been longer than the actual sentence. But it wasn't.
The sixth amendment requires that trials be conducted promptly, but the details of what constitutes a rapid trial are defined in law. There's a law called the Speedy Trial Act of 1974. It states that:
1) An indictment must be filed within 30 days of the arrest or when the summons is served.
2) The trial must occur within 70 days of the indictment or when the defendant appears in court, whichever is later.
However, there are three ways that the 70 days can be extended:
1) The defendant has the responsibility of requesting that the indictment be dismissed if their rights are violated. If the defendant fails to make this request, they are effectively waiving their rights.
2) The 70 days is automatically extended as necessary for pretrial motions.
3) The judge can determine that the need for justice sufficiently outweighs the need for a speedy trial, and the judge issues a written statement explaining the reasons for the delay.
These details are very important because they explain why a defendant could be in pretrial detention longer than 100 days (30 before the indictment, 70 following the indictment). I found one example where the Speedy Trial Act actually was violated, and I linked to it. In that case, the law was violated because prosecutors did not file the indictment in a timely manner.
I did not find additional instances where the Speedy Trial Act had been violated. If you are arguing that this is a large scale problem, you need to either 1) find more instances where the Speedy Trial Act has been violated, or 2) make the case that the Speedy Trial Act is unfair. You've done neither thus far. I searched quite a bit and found a single example where a defendant's rights had actually been violated.
You've provided no evidence that the rights of defendants has been violated at all. It's not my job to search for evidence to support your position. In good faith, I shared the one instance that I did find. It's wrong that the defendant's rights were violated in that case, but a single instance does not indicate that this is a systemic issue.
Either provide the evidence that this is a systemic issue or explicitly admit that you were wrong.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 12, @05:16AM (6 children)
By two or three days.
And that's relevant why? As far as I'm concerned, you already found an example. That's enough to show the problem actually exists.
To the contrary, I mentioned your evidence to the contrary.
(Score: 1) by dalek on Friday May 12, @10:43PM (5 children)
A couple of comments above, you wrote:
This strongly implies that it's a systemic issue, and that the rights of the alleged criminals have been violated on a significant scale. If that was not what you intended, you would not have used the word "everyone."
Then, you wrote the following:
This is after I found the instance of a violation of the Speedy Trial Act. You're again trying to imply, without evidence, that there are many more instances of alleged criminals from January 6 being denied the right to a speedy trial or being kept excessively in pretrial detention.
Now, you wrote:
The fact that 1) you have produced zero instances of an alleged criminal's rights being violated, and 2) I have found one instance of a criminal's rights being violated, does not support that this is a systemic issue like you claim it is. It is appropriate for me to not used the word "alleged" to describe the one criminal whose rights were violated, because that criminal later entered a guilty plea.
I've noticed a pattern where you do everything possible to downplay right-wing violence and threats of violence. Whether it's January 6 or Runaway's infamous "fifty million dead progressives" comment, you'll do anything to defend them, even when it means totally contradicting yourself later.
Let's remember that we're talking about one person's rights being violated out of hundreds who are being prosecuted. You've routinely thrown fits about describing January 6 as an armed insurrection, claiming that only one person was armed with a gun [soylentnews.org]. Let's apply the same logic you've used in this thread:
So if one person was armed, that's enough to show that the problem actually exists, and that an armed mob illegally entered the Capitol. I trust that you won't be throwing any more fits when people describe January 6 as an armed insurrection.
You can't have it both ways. Your posting history about this matter, where you've happily contradicted yourself when it's convenient, strongly indicates that you're a troll.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 14, @12:39AM (4 children)
Actually, it's at two instances, the example I provided and the example I appropriated from you.
And I notice a pattern of hysteria and puffery in what you write here. "Everything possible" is just not that much. There just isn't much to your complaint. For a glaring example of how silly this has gotten, consider how you exaggerated my single sentence observation "The only real complaint is how long it's taking to process everyone through the courts." You and I have both come up with examples supporting the claim, yet you are still downplaying the problem to the point you're even claiming there's no evidence for it. If you had thought about it rather than just knee jerk on whatever your agenda is, you would realize both that there will naturally be delay in any prosecution of hundreds of people over the entire US, and that if I were truly trying to do everything possible to downplay alleged right-wing violence and *cough* talk that sounds like threats to some people, I'd come up with stronger complaints.
My take remains that when we grossly exaggerate the threat from others, we're contributing to the problem of intolerance
(Score: 1) by dalek on Thursday May 18, @06:18AM (3 children)
My issue is that you're not being consistent.
You objected to the characterization of January 6 as an armed insurrection, saying that only one gun was found on the people arrested at the Capitol. We argued about this at length in prior journals. You argued that one instance does not necessarily indicate a larger problem. This is despite many people bringing guns in their cars and having massive caches of weapons outside of Washington with the intent of using them on January 6. It's also a fact that many of the people who broke into the Capitol on January 6 weren't arrested until later. Still, you insisted that this isn't indicative of a larger issue.
Here, only one example has been cited of the government violated the Speedy Trial Act. The Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. Congress then passed a law to define what constitutes a speedy trial and procedures to guarantee it. I searched quite a bit for stories about the right to a speedy trial being violated, and I found exactly one instance. You cited an example where the right to a speedy trial was not violated, though the defendant did spend almost the full length of his sentence in pretrial detention. Hundreds of people have been arrested, so by your own standard, one instance of the right to a speedy trial being violated shouldn't be taken to indicate a larger problem. But you're insisting it does, contradicting your own position on other matters related to January 6.
In both cases, your position is more or less to defend the rioters on January 6. You also argued that it wasn't a GOP problem, to which I also posted a rebuttal. Because your positions are contradictory, I view it as not being intellectually honest. You mention intolerance in your post. If you hope for people to tolerate each other and perhaps even get along, both sides have to be intellectually honest. In the case of our discussion here, I'm not going to respond favorably when I just don't think you're being intellectually honest in this matter.
I'm not insisting that you agree with me on the seriousness of January 6. I'm just asking for you to apply a consistent standard.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 18, @07:06AM (2 children)
And I was right. The difference here is that both of us casually looked and found problems right away. Meanwhile law enforcement searched a lot of people, viewed thousands of hours of video, and found a handful of firearms anywhere near the Capitol building.
If those people had the intent to use those caches of firearms, then why didn't they? There's something wrong with your narrative! As to being arrested then or later, that's completely irrelevant to both our arguments.
Finally, what larger issue? Do you have any evidence to go with that hysteria?
(Score: 1) by dalek on Thursday May 18, @07:50AM (1 child)
Of the hundreds of people who were arrested for the riot on January 6, I found just a single violation of a defendant's rights to a speedy trial. I didn't find other examples, despite looking for them. Therefore, I only have evidence that a single person's rights have actually been violated.
Only one person who was arrested at the Capitol on January 6 was found to have a firearm. Again, it's a single instance. You refer to the reactions to the January 6 riot as hysteria.
You're hysterically posting that the rights of people arrested for rioting on January 6 are being violated. What is the larger issue? Do you have any evidence to go with that hysteria?
I'm repeating your rhetoric back to you because you're doing exactly the same thing you criticize other people for. You're being deliberately obtuse, and I'm tired of going in circles with you to discuss this.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest just whinge about SN.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 18, @08:43AM
Again, how hard did you look?
I did. And I didn't look any harder than you did.
What hysteria? It was just a factual observation and I didn't give it a great deal of weight. It was you and an AC who blew it out of proportion (the AC in particular: somehow because I didn't complain about trial delays enough by their opinion in the past, meant I had no right to ever discuss the subject!). Seriously, I wrote 18 sentences and briefly mentioned said delay in trials near the end. That's my "hysterically posting". The larger issue was my remarks that the authorities had handled this protest/riot remarkably well and "This is the sort of response to intolerance that makes sense."
Both you and I have since confirmed that there's an actual problem which shouldn't be a surprise given the history of overloaded courts.
Perhaps you should find an example of this alleged problem first before complaining about it? I hope you either tire of this, or you bring your A game and actually give this subject some thought instead of this long stream of stupid, hysterical bullshit.
Here, I find it remarkable how meager your argument has been. There was a claim that I wasn't coonsistent [soylentnews.org]. No inconsistencies were ever described - merely that you disagreed with my statements and came up with something you thought was evidence at the time.
It's all garbage - worse some of that garbage actually supported my argument. Protesters were often armed with improvised weapons (like flag poles or fire extinguishers) or non-lethal ones (pepper spray and bats). They weren't armed with firearms. Your observation that there were piles of firearms in trucks underlines that point. There's a huge difference between having a loaded firearm in your hands ready to shoot versus having it in a truck ten minutes away. That happens to be the difference between being armed with firearms and not.
The stuff about Republicans while factual, just isn't that relevant. Political parties do silly posturing all the time and nothing much has come of it - =even the "armed insurgency" hysteria isn't going anywhere either. I see no evidence in your links that this time is any different.
And finally we come to this mountain of a molehill. It's not my alleged obtuseness that is the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @03:17AM (31 children)
Tell it to the fascists. Dialog is good until somebody outlaws your healthcare and attempts to suspend the Constitution to create a presidential dictatorship. In the end, we are forced to choose: socialism or barbarism.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @03:56AM (30 children)
Who would these fascists be? Nobody's healthcare got outlawed. Nor did anyone attempt to suspend the Constitution to create a presidential dictatorship. As to the choice between socialism and barbarism? They're orthogonal. Barbarians often had a lot of socialist aspects to their societies - like sharing resources, group projects, and maintaining commons. But that didn't work out so well for their victims.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @02:52PM (2 children)
omg lol
liek i cant even
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @04:14PM (1 child)
That's your problem. You ever want to talk about real problems, then you know where to find me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @05:43PM
Let us know when you are ready to face reality.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 03, @03:24AM (20 children)
Lots of people lost significant health care options since the repeal of Roe vs Wade. Also there was an alleged attempt to install Trump as president despite the election results not being in his favor. If memory serves we're a month or two away from the grand jury deciding if they want to indict over the scheme.
You and the AC can argue about fascism without me, but those statements you made are dubious.
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @03:58AM (19 children)
"Lots" is relative and very much an edge case.
"Alleged" is the key word here. There's much more effort in the alleging than in the actual attempt. My take is that this is merely a 2024 election ploy.
Indict != convict. And there's a saying [barrypopik.com] about that:
Note the quotes that follow in that article are all from the 1970s and 1980s, and discuss prosecutor shenanigans in a grand jury situation.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 03, @04:10AM (18 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @04:12AM (17 children)
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 03, @04:23AM (10 children)
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 03, @05:40AM (9 children)
Touche. That is accurate. I still don't buy that a narrow ban against anti-abortion (that only applies in 13 states) qualifies the statement "outlaws your healthcare" since it doesn't affect the health care of anyone who isn't pregnant or isn't in those states. And historically, fascists were quite willing to selectively use abortion as a tool of the state, particularly Nazi Germany.
Similarly, the Constitution has been increasingly suspended for a considerable time that long predates today's current breed of alleged fascists. Trump's era isn't notable in that respect and even has some significant reverses in the process (EPA and Title IX regulation rollbacks, for example).
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday May 03, @05:42AM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday May 06, @06:41AM (7 children)
So around a quarter of the states is an insignificant number and constitutes merely edge cases? What you probably mean is that it doesn't affect you. What proportion of states is needed to make something significant? 14 or 49?
You will continue arguing, but you have lost your argument with that one statement alone in my view, although you have made plenty more to convince me that you are most certainly not presenting a claim that can be sustained or supported.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:09PM (6 children)
Majority of population.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday May 06, @08:58PM (5 children)
Do you apply the same illogical reasoning for murder? Is it OK providing that it is less than the majority of people being killed?
Your reasoning is impossible to justify. Any murder is still wrong. The same with removing health care from a group of people that actually have more of a need for it than many others.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @06:15AM (4 children)
That's the sort of thing the anti-abortion people are saying.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday May 07, @07:47AM (3 children)
That is exactly what you appear to be supporting. You are claiming that the recent laws against abortions are not important because they only apply to a few people. Withdrawing that right when there is a medical justification - not religious - is simply unacceptable. Doctors make the decisions on medical matters, everyone else can simple stay out of it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @07:57PM (2 children)
Moving on, if we were to compare the legal environment for abortion today to what it was before Roe v. Wade, there are vastly less places which ban abortion now than there were in the 1970s. The US has changed and not in favor of the forces that create so much concern in this thread.
Actually patients or their proxies would make those decisions. Doctors can be proxies, but so can guardians for the patient or next of kin.
The real problem here is there's a fair bit of conflict of interest here. First, the medical provider who has both flawed viewpoints and self-interest, or another party is involved which generates a conflict of interest - for example, the fetus of a pregnant woman, an organ provider, or a third party which pays for the health care exercise. And once you have conflicts of interest, you have the decisions which require external review - everyone else can't merely stay out of it.
In that light, abortion is a manifestation of a natural conflict of interest between mother and fetus - both whom are recognized as people by the laws of the US (for example, one can be charged with murder for injuring a pregnant woman in the course of committing a felony (like burglary) and killing the fetus). My take on this is that there is a genuine moral case to be made for banning abortion, BUT the US and all of its states have shown they can't provide for unwanted babies in such a scenario of an outright ban. The state has relinquished its responsibilities and hence, should no longer have a say.
This gets to my real point here. An anti-abortion stance is a genuine moral argument. This would be far from the first time that anyone has attempted to use the power of the state to implement their ideas of morality - and the vast majority of them would not be considered fascist. I think it ridiculous to take an abortion ban as a sign of fascism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @05:12PM (1 child)
"This is not fascists blocking generic health care for out-groups. It's a very narrow abortion ban backed by religious moderate authoritarians in a minority of states"
That is fascism. I see your technique, if something is not the worst it can be then you pretend the fascism is not happening.
"I think it ridiculous to take an abortion ban as a sign of fascism."
I think your freedom of speech should be taken away since you push harmful propaganda. Don't worry, it is just one illogical troll being punished so it is not fascism!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @12:13AM
Your world must be a scary place.
Fascists have been in the US for a century, give or take. But going from a small group to a national movement needs more. Here, there were two alleged pieces of evidence. First, that somebody was outlawing someone's health care - that turned out to be the niche ban on abortion which predates fascism even. Glancing through the internet, it appears that anti-abortion laws [wikipedia.org] came with the creation of medical professional societies in the mid-19th century and a greater understanding of the process of pregnancy. That's not fascism.
Second that there was an alleged attempt to suspend the constitution and create a presidential dictatorship with evidence to support that either.
Now, you're whining that I'm allegedly pretending that imaginary fascism isn't happening by claiming that something isn't the worst it could be. In the real world, absence of evidence after years of searching is evidence of absence. In the delusional world of fascist alarmists, being unable to find evidence is proof that you're deliberately downplaying the imaginary danger.
All I can say is that I can't fix that for you.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday May 06, @07:54PM (5 children)
Do you think we don't recognize a "thin end of the wedge" strategy when we see one? ALL fascists start like this: target and destroy small, isolated groups with little public support, use that time to consolidate power, and then expand. Why you think you're going to come out on top in a regime like that is a mystery
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @08:38PM (4 children)
Where's the wedge behind that edge? This rather is an artifact of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision. For example, of the 13 states [wikimedia.org] where abortion is presently illegal, 12 of them would be illegal anyway [wikimedia.org] due to laws passed from before the Dobbs v. Jackson decision (note that the second map has 19 states with existing laws banning abortion).
I believe we saw similar during the hubbub over same sex marriages. They were illegal country-wide through 2004, then suddenly legal everywhere in the wake of Baehr v. Miike [wikipedia.org]. Subsequent to that, a number of states prohibited recognition of same sex marriages. I don't recall what the peak was at, but I think it might have been a majority of states at one point. Then things started to slide toward recognition of same sex marriages again with the whole opposition falling apart in the wake of the Obergefell v. Hodges [wikipedia.org]. The Dobbs v. Jackson decision does throw some uncertainty in here, but there new legislative protection by the new Respect for Marriage Act [wikipedia.org].
My take is that people are normalizing their views of these things in a sane direction. It just takes a while.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday May 07, @03:32AM (3 children)
That normalization is being undone at the hands of these so-called conservatives. And make no mistake, this is one front on a multi-front culture war they're fighting. THAT is what I mean by "thin end of the wedge," and I'm damn sure you know that.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @06:13AM (2 children)
Well, they need to work harder because it's mostly going the wrong direction!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @05:15PM (1 child)
Just a dumb contrarian eh? You're a boot licking loser.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 09, @12:39AM
What responsibility should I have for people who refuse to acknowledge reality?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 05, @03:05AM (5 children)
Proud Boys leaders convicted of conspiracy against democracy [wsws.org]
* couldn't resist
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday May 05, @08:33PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:34PM (3 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @04:59PM (2 children)
Violently ass-vaulting the capitol to discard election results you don't like, to install the bigliest fascist loser evar, is PRECISELY overthrowing democracy.
You are such a piece of shit, but you somewhat decent at pretending to be objective. Then you drop a deuce like this and it shows anyone paying attention how much you care about truth and objectivity: only so far as they support your ideological agenda.
Ya done been rekt shallow muh boi!!! And ya did it ta yerself ;^D
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday May 07, @09:58PM (1 child)
You too can pretend to be objective. Here's how I do it:
I suppose there's more, but that's what came to mind.
It wasn't very violent. Only one person died from violence in the protest. Further, they didn't do much to the Capitol - mild vandalism was about it. Nor did they try to discard anyone's election results. I'll buy that Trump is a large fascist loser, but there's bigger losers out there even now (and the ones of the past were truly epic in scale). So no, not buying the narrative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @05:21PM
I truly love seeing your shallow attempts to remain relevant while still pushing the rightwing agenda. Not long ago calling Trump a fascist had you loudly protesting and demanding proof. When the insurrection becomes politically non-viable you will shift again. If I had a magic lamp one wish would be to have the power to unmask propagandists. Guess I will settle for dumb arguments where you showcase your ahem talents.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 30, @03:38AM (7 children)
Khallow.
Khallow.
Khallow.
Khallow.
Khallow.
Khallow.
Fantacizing Khallow. Substitute "liberals" or "progressives" for Jews.
Khallow.
Oh, dear! Eliz Claire Prophet? And Khallow? Sitting on a Super-Volcano? Does not bode well.
Khallow.
Nope, not going to get engaged to you, khallow. Go find your own bride.
Khallow.
Khallow.
Khallow. A profound lack of self-awareness is a very scary thing.
OK, at long last, khallow suggests that we stop trying to argue with him, since that never works, and instead do something else the does work. Like coddling Runaway 1956 or spam modding suspected aristarchoi. Or, we could tolerate religions that find sex to be really icky, and want to ban trans and gay and uppity women.
(Score: 2, Funny) by khallow on Sunday April 30, @03:49AM (6 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @05:22PM (3 children)
More like a rage-posting khallow on a tear. But that's just my take on the situation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 01, @08:27PM (2 children)
It's an obvious butthole!
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02, @10:50AM (1 child)
Well, my take, on the obvious butthole, is, . . . Oh, dear, did not expect it to go that way so quickly. Khallow! Can you feel me?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday May 06, @07:22PM
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03, @10:51AM (1 child)
It is noted that he has to ask. And, "khallow" should be in quotative quotation marks in this sentence.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 07, @12:11PM
Words have meaning, bad faith has consequences, such flaming traitorous bullshit will not end well. Janrinok has weighed in, much as he did with Runaway over the
tranny penis school lunch//Nigerian penis stealing witchesDrag Queen story hours, against khallow's right-wing propaganda and denial that Republicans are hurting actual Americans. I sense a change of weather on SoylentNews. Can more bannation be far away?(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08, @12:36PM
Tell me you're nazi without telling me you're nazi.