|
The Glumslinger posted:I disagree with them Someone suggested in ages past to turn it into free granite countertops for poc. More utility that way.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Mustached Demon posted:Someone suggested in ages past to turn it into free granite countertops for poc. More utility that way. Put a giant Sherman and Grant best to it so it's like they're running away
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
“The nightmare scenario is that somebody decides to be a lone wolf and pulls something like what happened in Charlottesville,” says member of group that is one person deciding to be a lone wolf and pulling something shy of being an armed riot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Anchor Wanker posted:Largest Confederate monument in the country shut down, klan too scared to show up to town. The pictures in that article are a loving trip.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Old Kentucky Shark posted:The pictures in that article are a loving trip. Really makes me chuckle at the thought that there are people I work with who think Antifa are a bunch of little kids "playing revolutionary" and wouldn't know what to do if "things™ actually happened." They look more ready to open fire on someone than those idiot CHUDs who show up with airsoft guns and Super Soakers. Hail Satan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:“The nightmare scenario is that somebody decides to be a lone wolf and pulls something like what happened in Charlottesville,” says member of group that is one person deciding to be a lone wolf and pulling something shy of being an armed riot. Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by this? Your sentence seems to contain a factual inaccuracy, a non-sequitur and a false equivalency, and I'm having difficulty parsing it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:“The nightmare scenario is that somebody decides to be a lone wolf and pulls something like what happened in Charlottesville,” says member of group that is one person deciding to be a lone wolf and pulling something shy of being an armed riot. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 01:46
|
|
|
Neo Confederates should thank their apartheid lord, people have settled on trashing the statues alone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 02:01
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:“The nightmare scenario is that somebody decides to be a lone wolf and pulls something like what happened in Charlottesville,” says member of group that is one person deciding to be a lone wolf and pulling something shy of being an armed riot. That's a spicy meat-take!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 02:05
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Would you care to elaborate on what you mean by this? Your sentence seems to contain a factual inaccuracy, a non-sequitur and a false equivalency, and I'm having difficulty parsing it. As in one nutjob shoots into/out of the mob of people and then you have a mob of terrified, confused, armed people. The escalation of protests/counter protests to being heavily armed is scary as hell for anyone in range if it goes riot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 05:23
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:As in one nutjob shoots into/out of the mob of people and then you have a mob of terrified, confused, armed people. The escalation of protests/counter protests to being heavily armed is scary as hell for anyone in range if it goes riot. Hmm. Well, you get to be concerned. The people who’ve been threatened with being murdered with a car get to carry their weapons through a region where “those in range” are more likely to be taking potshots at protestors from their pie-cooling window than anything else. I guess I don’t understand the fear-mongering aspect of the argument.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
Peacoffee posted:I guess I don’t understand the fear-mongering aspect of the argument. it's just people noticing left leaning folks showing up armed to protest and viewing that as an escalation because of narrative attraction rather than it being just a thing that happens that otherwise passes without much media interest. note that these protests happened yesterday and basically nobody cared, because it was a counterprotest to a racist rally that never happened in a different location because state authorities closed the park rather than deal with the media attention
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:As in one nutjob shoots into/out of the mob of people and then you have a mob of terrified, confused, armed people. The escalation of protests/counter protests to being heavily armed is scary as hell for anyone in range if it goes riot. I mean, cops in the USA have been coming to protests armed to the teeth and dressed like characters from Judge Dredd for at least the last 17 years. Right-wing nutjobs have been brandishing assault rifles as an act of "protest" for at least the last ten. But nope, the real escalation is when the people who are explicitly out to oppose racism and Nazism start getting armed as well. Got it. Yes, guns at protests are scary as gently caress, and that's high on the list of things that make people from outside say "what the gently caress is wrong with your country?" But this is not new, and the fact that you only notice or point it out when the anti-racists start doing it speaks volumes about your opinions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 07:01
|
|
|
Peacoffee posted:Hmm. Well, you get to be concerned. The people who’ve been threatened with being murdered with a car get to carry their weapons through a region where “those in range” are more likely to be taking potshots at protestors from their pie-cooling window than anything else. So, full disclosure. I attended the rally and should clarify that the locals were actually pretty cool with us being there. Town is mostly POC so its no surprise that an anti-klan rally was well received.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
Anchor Wanker posted:So, full disclosure. I attended the rally and should clarify that the locals were actually pretty cool with us being there. Town is mostly POC so its no surprise that an anti-klan rally was well received. Noted. I wouldn’t assume to know the specific area, but glad to hear it. Also, thanks for being there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 07:18
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:But this is not new, and the fact that you only notice or point it out when the anti-racists start doing it speaks volumes about your opinions. That's quite the assumption you made there. Conservative wanks with a vigilante boner annoy me just as much as liberal ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2019 13:29
|
|
|
Kale posted:I don't know but I think I'm beginning to see more and more why twitter is as bad as it is the more that I hear about Jack Dorsey and his ideas and the lack of meaning or purpose he attaches to communication. The guy just kind of gives me the creeps all around and the more he talks the more it strikes me his definition of free speech is not altogether un-tethered from the alt-rights definition of "My sworn right to say hateful and bigoted things 24/7". By that I mean I still don't think he's an out and out Nazi supporter white nationalist by cause, I just think he lacks the ability to comprehend why hate speech shouldn't be signal boosted and how it's a bad look for Twitter all around when he just shrugs his shoulders indifferently about it and treats a barely concealed call for violence by the President as of the same value and harm level as someone tweeting about their dog doing something cute. All posting is just whatever to him, if it brings in revenue so be it. Trump and Obama same thing, some guys that are were presidents just saying stuff and it's "content" for twitter.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think anyone really has a firm grasp on what we want social media to be. No one thinks your telephone company or the one ISP that has a monopoly in your area should be in the business of determining if you are making The Right Sort Of Speech, and at this point there are several industries where having a social media presence is effectively a job requirement, not to mention the folks who pay their bills by monetizing YouTube or Twitch channels. You can always host your content independently, but realistically if you aren't on a major platform, you may as well not exist for most of the potential audience. I think social media companies are rightly worried that, if they embrace content based censoring, they are going to be asked to pass judgment on every single issue. While the EU seems to be happy with the results of pressuring Facebook, EU law is much more amenable to censorship than American, and frankly I'm not comfortable with the arbiter of what counts as censorable hate speech or racism being "whoever Mark Zuckerberg hires for that job." On the other hand my ISP reports child porn and tor ussage so no?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think anyone really has a firm grasp on what we want social media to be. No one thinks your telephone company or the one ISP that has a monopoly in your area should be in the business of determining if you are making The Right Sort Of Speech, and at this point there are several industries where having a social media presence is effectively a job requirement, not to mention the folks who pay their bills by monetizing YouTube or Twitch channels. You can always host your content independently, but realistically if you aren't on a major platform, you may as well not exist for most of the potential audience. I think social media companies are rightly worried that, if they embrace content based censoring, they are going to be asked to pass judgment on every single issue. While the EU seems to be happy with the results of pressuring Facebook, EU law is much more amenable to censorship than American, and frankly I'm not comfortable with the arbiter of what counts as censorable hate speech or racism being "whoever Mark Zuckerberg hires for that job." The problem is that they already perform content based censoring (and indeed they'd have a lot fewer users if they didn't to some degree), they just do it without consistent principles (at least not ones that bear much resemblance to their claimed principles). I do agree that there's no easy solution here. My gut feeling is that we shouldn't have large-scale social media, only smaller forums like SA where moderation can be more transparent and an individual site's moderation has less of an impact on the global discourse. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Feb 5, 2019 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:On the other hand my ISP reports child porn and tor ussage so no?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
The whole point of the common law system is to establish precedent so that things like "hate crime" and "hate speech" have strict legal meanings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 02:57
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:The whole point of the common law system is to establish precedent so that things like "hate crime" and "hate speech" have strict legal meanings. The news story doesn't explain things very clearly, but it doesn't give me the impression that there's any substantial body of common-law precedent involved here, and it's hard to imagine how there could be one both comprehensive enough and straightforward enough to practically apply to social media. Zuckerberg seems to be trying to create a sort of private equivalent of a court system for Facebook moderation with the proposed "oversight board" or whatever it's called, but the idea doesn't strike me as very practical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 03:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/emlas/status/1092581549118246912?s=21 Best Doctor Ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 04:48
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm fine with service providers taking action against enumerated crimes, and I think everyone else is as well, but "hate speech" isn't that. I mean, in most democracies hate speech is, indeed, an enumerated crime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:That's quite the assumption you made there. Conservative wanks with a vigilante boner annoy me just as much as liberal ones. I mean, other than the fact that there are almost certainly very few conservatives or liberals involved in this -- it's pretty soundly nazis vs a mixture of anarchists and communists, your saying that nazis are just as bad as the people who oppose nazis is effectively showing support for nazis. Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of the Black Panthers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 05:22
|
|
|
Mister Mind posted:https://twitter.com/emlas/status/1092581549118246912?s=21
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 06:29
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I mean, other than the fact that there are almost certainly very few conservatives or liberals involved in this -- it's pretty soundly nazis vs a mixture of anarchists and communists, your saying that nazis are just as bad as the people who oppose nazis is effectively showing support for nazis. So I dislike people of any stripe looking for an excuse to kill someone with their guns, therefore I support nazism? As for the black panthers, at least they did a bunch of community service to make things shades of grey rather than worshipping a totalitarian state.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 13:49
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:So I dislike people of any stripe looking for an excuse to kill someone with their guns, therefore I support nazism? who the gently caress is 'looking for an excuse' on the left, you compared that hypothetical to the actual thing where a real dude rammed his actual car into a crowd of people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 16:40
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:who the gently caress is 'looking for an excuse' on the left, you compared that hypothetical to the actual thing where a real dude rammed his actual car into a crowd of people. I'm curious if they think a rifle is a good countermeasure for car ramming. I'm not sure armed guards flanking the march would have saved anyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 17:07
|
|
|
It was obviously an effective deterrent, which was the point. Not vigilantes with a boner for murder or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
BillyC posted:It was obviously an effective deterrent, which was the point. Not vigilantes with a boner for murder or whatever. The article literally has a picture of a banner reading death to the kkk. It describes the dudes with guns as "left wing militia". They are literally wearing masks and burning effigies. That's a crowd working itself up to go after "the other guy" and it wouldn't have taken much for stuff to get ugly. The nazis in question had already had their permit declined and canned their rally when people the knew in the police said they'd get arrested if they showed up. So yeah, can't even call it an effective deterrent because the law already was one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:The article literally has a picture of a banner reading death to the kkk. It describes the dudes with guns as "left wing militia". They are literally wearing masks and burning effigies. That's a crowd working itself up to go after "the other guy" and it wouldn't have taken much for stuff to get ugly. Observable Universe Brain Take right here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 18:04
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:The article literally has a picture of a banner reading death to the kkk. It describes the dudes with guns as "left wing militia". They are literally wearing masks and burning effigies. That's a crowd working itself up to go after "the other guy" and it wouldn't have taken much for stuff to get ugly. Its weird how that supposedly worked up crowd didn't do the thing you said and was actively accepted and appreciated by the mostly poc community in the area, but sure man the armed leftist are the same as the maga chuds looking for a victim. Hint: the armed deterrent was against the police force as well, who actively support white nationalists. Don't let any of that get in the way of your both sides galaxy brain take tho.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:The article literally has a picture of a banner reading death to the kkk. It describes the dudes with guns as "left wing militia". They are literally wearing masks and burning effigies. That's a crowd working itself up to go after "the other guy" and it wouldn't have taken much for stuff to get ugly. Sounds good to me OP.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 18:19
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:I mean, in most democracies hate speech is, indeed, an enumerated crime. Vincent Van Goatse posted:The whole point of the common law system is to establish precedent so that things like "hate crime" and "hate speech" have strict legal meanings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 18:23
|
|
|
Wearing a mask is basically the same as ramming pedestrians with a car
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:The article literally has a picture of a banner reading death to the kkk. It describes the dudes with guns as "left wing militia". They are literally wearing masks and burning effigies. That's a crowd working itself up to go after "the other guy" and it wouldn't have taken much for stuff to get ugly. It’s a “left wing militia” because no one else is willing to shut down the growing movement advocating genocide against poc, immigrants, lgbt, Muslims, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 19:07
|
|
|
Stickman posted:It’s a “left wing militia” because no one else is willing to shut down the growing movement advocating genocide against poc, immigrants, lgbt, Muslims, etc. The cops did a pretty good job of telling them to gently caress off this time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 21:18 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't think it's possible to do such a thing in a way that is compatable with free expression and isn't trivially exploitable by those who wish to silence their critics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2019 19:58
|
|
