Lurker > willythemailboy

adjl posted...

Largely a technicality. Whatever legal definitions you want to invoke, it remains a matter of a government entity choosing to harm somebody based on the things they said, which clearly is not in the spirit of mandating that the government permit free speech.

I don't think you're a free speech absolutist any more than I am, but that's the argument you're making. In principle this is no different from firing teachers for calling their coworkers racial slurs. You wouldn't defend that, which means you're bending the principle of the argument to fit your politics rather than apply that principle evenly.

adjl posted...

Firing teachers for being Klan members would be a response to them advocating for violence against people based on who they intrinsically and unavoidably are. That's notably different from advocating for violence against people based on the voluntary decisions they made to hurt people.

Religion is generally considered part of that intrinsic identity and is constitutionally protected as such. With that in mind, if one teacher believes gay marriage is an affront to God and another is posting "death to homophobes", which one is the school district legally obligated to fire?

adjl posted...

To invoke Godwin's law, I doubt you'd ever see a teacher fired for saying that they're glad Hitler is dead, so clearly there's some middle ground there. So where is it?

I think we may see that at some point. If you have the entire media class constantly calling Trump and various other Republican figures Hitler, then something happens to those figures, are they really talking about the actual Hitler or "literally Hitler"? Is the left even capable of seeing a difference?

adjl posted...

The answer, of course, is that you're dancing around the question of what actually constitutes an act of violence, clinging to an easy example to avoid genuinely confronting it. Why do you think that is?

I recognize obvious bait? It's clear you're not looking for any sort of honest debate as to the difference between violence and incitement to violence. Neither is good, but there is an obvious difference between the two. Violence requires nothing else to cause physical harm; incitement to violence (even self-violence) requires someone else to act upon that incitement. If I say someone should hit you with a brick, and no one does as I ask, have you in fact been hit with a brick?

ooger posted...

So you admit it happened and is an overreach that breaches the first amendment, a.k.a the tyranny mentioned in the image I posted.

So, I'll ask you again, in what way is this not government overreach?

In that particular case it is government overreach and that's why I don't expect it to go anywhere. Note that only applies to Bondi taking government action (if she actually does) and not to the employee being fired for her actions, which was not a result of any sort of government action.

ooger posted...

The FCC is also trying to suppress speech by threatening to pull broadcasting licenses.

Now you're defending the right to publish fake news? What a time to be alive.

Also, the timeline is kind of messed up on that. Local affiliates were already cancelling Kimmel either before or nearly simultaneously with the FCC chair's comments.

ooger posted...

Yes, Attorney General Pam Bondi is helping.

Do you read the news?

As far as I can tell, it's on one incident that A) even the largely Republican Supreme Court has ruled against her stance on and B) in a way that even Republicans are calling for her to be fired over. And still, no actual action has been taken and almost certainly never will.

adjl posted...

It is, however, freedom from government enforcement. I don't know about you, but I'd say "the government will fire you if you say this" is not freedom from government enforcement that you not say this.

Government employment is not a protected right, nor is being fired from a position of public trust a criminal sanction. Teachers getting fired for being Klan members would fall under the same justification but somehow I doubt you'd be standing up for their right to not be fired for what they say.

adjl posted...

Did you miss my question about misgendering, or are you ignoring it because you know it's going to go somewhere you can't refute?

I saw it and ignored it as an unproductive, distractive side issue the topic doesn't need. A pronoun doesn't cause the unwilling recipient to immediately start bleeding explosively from the neck the way actual violence does.

If it helps, you can replace misgendering with any other type of slur and the point stands.

adjl posted...

It's also included multiple government employees, particularly teachers. That means it is in fact the government making decisions about what people are allowed to say.

You're still allowed to say whatever you want. What is the mantra that the cancel culture warriors of the past decade popularized? "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."

ooger posted...

The vice president is endorsing it and encouraging it.

What. Are. You. Talking. About?

Is he using the power of the government to implement it? Because "endorse" and "encourage" do not mean "implement". What new law has been passed in regard to this issue? Hell, what existing law has been enforced in regard to this issue?

ooger posted...

Why not start it yourself?

I'm not on social media and I'm not about to start now. I will certainly "boycott" those two musicians, but I use sarcasm quotes because before today I was unaware of their existence and preferred it that way.

ooger posted...

It's not irrelevant.

It shows the person who is no longer in the world would absolutely not condone what people are doing on behalf of what happened to them.

How do you not understand that?

Post 69, nice.

It is irrelevant until you post a hell of a lot more context than that. I admit I'm far less familiar with Kirk than you clearly are, but "tyranny" generally refers to government action which most of the current cancel wave is not. Some of it certainly is, but that's largely due to the people being cancelled being government employees so various government entities must by necessity become involved.

ooger posted...

Do you think this is appropriate rhetoric to the situation you are referencing, or is this also "terrorist speech" where the intent is to instill fear in those who listen to the song?

Fuck those two, and fuck their record label for allowing them to publish that. If a cancel campaign were to result in both of them losing whatever contracts they may have, I'd completely agree with it.

ooger posted...

I see that Willy is ignoring the source of the image I posted.

I ignored it because it is irrelevant. Or are you arguing that either of those quotes justify being assassinated over?

Edit: you're also ignoring the political context of the first quote. One side calls misgendering someone an act of violence, and that first quote is the argument against that. Words do not cause physical harm, only violence does and it's foolish to conflate the two.

On the other hand, words can certainly be a call to violence, which is again not direct violence but can result in it. Yet one more example from the last week:
https://www.threads.com/@scottpresler/post/DOlyacTEVhE/media

Keep in mind the person who posted that was a government official and the deputy chair of the local Democratic Party

agesboy posted...

you really need to base your opinion on more than one 50 second clip some twitter guy baited you to get mad about

Terrorism supporters get no watch time from me. As I've already said, he can say he didn't mean it until he collapses from exhaustion and it doesn't mean shit.

Edit: to put it in terms you'll understand. "He streamed for four hours that day, why are you concentrating on the one clip where he called someone a n*****?"

Accrovideogames posted...

It doesn't have to be the fear of getting killed; the fear of having their reputation ruined and being unemployable should be enough.

You'd have a point if the Destiny clip didn't specifically say they need to fear being killed. He's not saying the quiet part out loud, he's printing out a phone book worth of quiet parts and beating you with it and you're still choosing to not hear it.

And if it's not clear enough for you, two days after Kirk was shot two people were arrested in Salt Lake City for placing a bomb under a local Fox affiliate news van. It barely made the news because it failed to go off.

Pulled straight from your ass as far as I can tell.

ooger posted...

I think if you can read context clues, you might be able to figure it out.

willythemailboy posted...

This is what I meant by you not engaging honestly.

I see you're incapable of changing. Try dialing the childish passive aggression back to a reasonable level.

agesboy posted...

he's absolutely not saying that more examples need to be made, you're hearing what you want to hear

You're denying what was plainly said, or if you like "you're hearing what you want to hear"

agesboy posted...

he's saying more people need to realize the consequences of hateful violent rhetoric,

Which is, to remind the board, that an extremist might just assassinate you on some random Wednesday.

agesboy posted...

not have the consequences happen to them

Of course, being dead does not lend itself to being cowed into silence by the fear of being killed. For you the worst has already happened.

It does strike fear into the people who share your views, though, and that's the point of the exercise. The purpose of terrorist is in fact terror. Who knew?

agesboy posted...

he's not advocating for violence, what the hell are you on about

Bullshit he's not. He's saying enough examples need to be made that the survivors learn from those examples.

If you can't at least admit that, the problem is on your end.

ooger posted...

I'm not talking about destiny my guy. I am talking about another person.

willythemailboy posted...

This is what I meant by you not engaging honestly.

If you want to bring up someone else, actually say what you want to discuss. Don't expect me to read your damn mind.

ooger posted...

No no, I mean from the person in question.

How much more of a quote from the person in question can I give you after I've already posted the recording of him saying it on stream?

This is what I meant by you not engaging honestly.

agesboy posted...

destiny has stated tons of time he does not advocate for political violence at all.

Well there he is on stream directly advocating for political violence. After that I couldn't give less of a damn what he claims to advocate.

ooger posted...

What about directly quoting things they said?

It's not worth the time and effort to dig the direct quotes up when you're not going to engage with the topic honestly anyway. And there's every chance the topic will be locked or disappeared before I find the original source for you anyway.

Edit: the Destiny source was easy enough to find. https://x.com/ericldaugh/status/1967716951704379685

I skipped most of it to find the actual tweet and it basically says "This is a premium game for premium gamers. If you don't like how the game runs on your PC, stop being poor."

adjl posted...

at all publicly critical of Kirk

Publicly critical of Kirk, or publicly justifying his assassination? There's a hell of a lot of difference between the two. Hell, I would be considered "publicly critical" of Kirk because I find that brand of overt religion inserted into politics to be off-putting, to put it mildly. I doubt that's going to get me fired from a job, though.

Shit like "Right wingers SHOULD be afraid to attend events, because if they're afraid enough maybe they'll change their rhetoric" probably should get you fired from a job, but as far as I know the Twitch streamer I paraphrased hasn't been removed from the platform yet.

josh posted...

Being a dibber dobber (taddle tale) to someone's boss because you didn't like something someone said online is peak pathetic. Then again I live in a country with hate speech laws so it's not like I feel the need to take "justice" into my own hands.

Depends. Under your country's hate speech laws, where would a "Great! Do JK Rowling next!" post fall, or "Should have got the wife and kids as well." fall? Because those are the sorts of posts people are getting fired over.

ooger posted...

Makes sense to me. We have the first amendment for a reason.

Funny how you only care when you're (collective "your", as in the whole left) the target. Any time before you'd have been like "the first amendment protects my right to tell companies to get rid of people I don't like". And you're correct in that the first amendment only protects you from the government using the force of law against you; it does not protect you from consequences imposed by your fellow citizens.

You're not being silenced, you're just being shown the unemployment line.

ooger posted...

Which the Government is now advocating for.

The government is advocating for people to use their first amendment protected speech to counter other people's first amendment protected speech? Sounds like speech working as intended and is certainly better than shooting the speaker.

ultra_magnus13 posted...

Really miss Clusters, or maybe it was Klusters, either way may have been my favorite.

Seconded.

I usually go for Banana Nut Crunch or Blueberry Morning, although I don't do cereal nearly as much as I used to, to the point I sometimes can't finish a quart of milk before it goes bad.

ooger posted...

It certainly has, seemingly by groups who previously were vehemently against such tactics.

And used against people who were gleefully willing to use it on that first group. It's hard to feel any pity for people being hoist on their own petard; it's the world they wanted to live in, after all.

adjl posted...

It's not inherently bad or good, instead depending on the cause for which one is voting.

"There's no bad tactics, only bad targets."

This is why people hate cancel culture so much: the people participating in it are massive hypocrites when it comes to their own tactics being used against them.

ooger posted...

Do you all think this is increasing or decreasing?

It's certainly seen a big spike in the last week or so.

Being fed to shrimp to create real food.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

40's is when your body slowly begins to self-destruct one piece at a time.

Makes sense, that's when the warranty expires.

OhhhJa posted...

We'll never know the truth about all the epstein stuff unless the government were to be overturned which likely wont ever happen. That list is dying with everyone connected to it

Why would you believe it even if the government were to be overturned? It's almost certainly been tampered with already, you'd at best be getting a tampered version.

And I'm also assuming you mean a complete governmental change, as the Democrats didn't seem any more willing to release the list than the current administration is. MAYBE in 50 years after everyone possibly involved has died of old age.

adjl posted...

The flip side is that a whole lot of people see a perfect score as something that should only be handed out in exceptional circumstances. If everyone you interacted with was friendly, you found everything you were looking for without difficulty, and you didn't notice any problems, is that a 5/5? Or do you call that a 3/5 so there's room to give a higher score when your expectations are exceeded?

That's not really all that common, and can largely be controlled for because that group of customers will consistently rate like that. Say on average you're going to have 15% of customers downrate you regardless, that just means that your goal is 85% 5s instead of 100% 5s. What they're really looking for is time comparisons: are there days where you're consistently getting 80+% 5s and others where you get 75%? That might indicate a problem with individual workers on the 75% days or more commonly the manager(s) on duty on those 75% days. Sometimes it's even tracked down to the hour, which may indicate problems on a particular shift (i.e. second shift didn't bother throwing milk AGAIN and you sold out before third shift came in. No, that's never happened and why do you ask?)

adjl posted...

Yeah, at this point, nothing about "the list" is particularly credible. Half of the people suspected to be on it have had a chance to modify it, and the other half is friends with the first half. To put any stock in "the list" is to assume that there's anyone at the top of the justice system seriously looking for solid evidence to bring corrupt people in places of power to justice, and that assumption grossly underestimates just how much power those corrupt people have.

There's also the possibility of names having been added as well as removed. There are only one source I'd mostly believe now and one I'd kinda-sorta believe. The first is the list being compiled by the victims themselves, and the second would be if Maxwell had a safety deposit box or something that she hasn't had contact with since before she was arrested.

adjl posted...

If anything, I'd say corporate is fully aware that most people don't treat a 1-5 scale as being binary, but keep them around solely so they can point at any number of sub-5s as evidence of poor performance if they want an excuse to punish people/franchises.

Some of that, but more the opposite: they know more people that had a mediocre experience will give a 3/5 or 4/5 rating rather than a 0/1 rating. It catches "fails" that the customers wouldn't be willing to call fails. For example: I just spent nearly $100 on groceries at Walmart and I was mostly happy with that experience, but their banana table was full of crap that I wouldn't even spend someone else's money on. Do I rate the entire shopping experience as a 0/1 fail or give it a 4/5?

Damn_Underscore posted...

Not even ebay does it right because anything less than 100% positive feedback on there is considered bad

Basically everyone does that, even for internal numbers. If you've ever seen the "rate your experience" thing at the self checkout at Walmart or something, those are pass/fail as well even though the numbers will never be seen by the public. The store is rated by corporate for the percentage of 5s they get, anything from 1-4 is considered a fail.

Not myself, but my mother and brother have the same birthday. Also that brother's wedding anniversary, as he knew that was the only way he'd ever remember it.

I've never had one but I have done the "crap in a box and mail it to the lab" screening.

adjl posted...

So the creator of the first topic got banned because somebody else made a post in the topic that (allegedly) pivoted the discussion to be more political, but the creator of the second topic did not get banned because somebody else didn't make such a post? We're deciding whether or not to punish topic creators based on the discussions other people choose to have in their topics?

Yes? Moderating based on the likely responses to your post has always been policy. It's literally in the definition of trolling, for example.

We're all assuming he was banned for the topic here solely because that was the topic we saw. That may not actually be the case, and short of a mod telling us as much we will probably never know for sure. The topic was locked well before being nuked, which may indicate a mod cleaning up remaining posts rather than that topic being the cause of the ban.

ObligatoryFate posted...

Its a MOUNDS!

Mounds have dark chocolate; an almond-less almond joy has milk chocolate.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

oh it doesn't confuse me at all, i just made the flip flop hypocrisy blatantly clear

both of those posts, by your logic, are the same

They aren't the same because your post made them not the same. The second topic had no equivalent post and didn't turn political other than site moderation politics.

That's not hypocrisy, that's you not understanding how politics work on this site. Or in general.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

so let me get this straight

you are saying mike got banned because his topic would have turned into a political topic, which justifies it somehow

while also saying that being indifferent, or mockingly dismissive as you claimed, aligns with the moderators views, thus not getting me moderated

but simply saying "charlie kirk was shot in utah" somehow doesn't?

am i getting this correct.

More or less correct. If any of that confuses you, that's on you.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

cool

specifically the part where i'm not modded for it, and mike got banned for just saying the guy was shot in utah, so you are wrong. that's the cool part.

anyways,

No one expected you to be moderated for it, because it aligns with the site's moderation politics. Had the victim been a public figure from the left, you would have been moderated for it.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

nah ce had three 500 topics celebrating his death

That's to be expected, for exactly the reason outlined above.

If anything, your post is probably what led to MC getting banned because you made it obvious where the topic was going to go.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

being indifferent that someone was shot does not make it political either lmfao

That is not "being indifferent" it's being mockingly dismissive. And it's political on this site because you can only use that in one direction; using that as a response to a person of the opposite political persuasion being shot would get you banned almost as fast as MICHALECOLE.

SunWuKung420 posted...

It's hilarious you don't know that it was a confusedtorchic post.

I absolutely did know and that's why I pointed it out.

ConfusedTorchic posted...

it wasn't even a political topic

There was no way that topic was going to stay non-political. The fact that one of the first few posts was an "oh no!, anyway" post is proof enough of that.

Lokarin posted...

enforcement is so vague that that's why I've opted to not discuss anything that's real life (except my own personals)

It's also highly personalized. I have a moderation note on a suspension about a year ago that basically says that while a particular topic is allowed on the board, I should not participate in such topics.

We'll have another wave of CE refugees in about 6 months. I can't imagine the shitstorm that has to be right now.

I always preferred Bat Out of Hell II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe98VzQhccU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8szoC2mftA

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Enforcement of the UK's Online Safety Act kicked in this year, and YouTube announced its new age-verification policy like a week after the UK started. A LOT of "WOMG WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!" legislation got passed in a lot of different places between 2021 and 2024 or so, and a lot of it slid under the radar because it had delayed enforcement. But now we're seeing the nasty fruits of technology laws passed by politicians in their 60s who don't understand technology and barely understand laws.

Not to mention that the UK is now arresting 30+ people a day for mean tweets and other types of wrongthink. The laws permitting that aren't new but the level of enforcement is unprecedented.

NeoSioType posted...

This isn't the world I remember growing up in. Does the existence of cashless places not alarm anyone?

Somewhat topically, I heard this on the radio yesterday. The world you "don't remember growing up" hasn't really existed since the 90s.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7iQbBbMAFE

Kallainanna posted...

You say this as if this country does not already have an incredibly cruel and punitive justice system interested primarily in retribution.

Literally every criminal law "reform" in the past decade or so has resulted in more crime, and it's consistent enough that it is reasonable to conclude that is the intended goal.

kingdrake2 posted...

we're having to follow extra steps for some goddamn medicine are we?

Even the American health insurance industry it looking at that and saying no, that's a bit too far.

It turns out that all the things that make mammal meat bad for you is also what makes it taste good.