Navy Deploys USS Barbra Streisand After Firing A Captain For Expressing His Coronavirus Concerns
from the walking-your-own-plank dept
In the midst of a pandemic, a Navy captain pleaded for the health and safety of his sailors. And for that, he was relieved of duty.
A letter to Navy officials, written by Captain Brett Crozier of the USS Theodore Roosevelt, was obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle. Social distancing doesn't work when you're stuck on a ship. Just ask anyone stuck on the handful of luxury cruise liners that became floating attack vectors for the coronavirus.
“This will require a political solution but it is the right thing to do,” Crozier wrote. “We are not at war. Sailors do not need to die. If we do not act now, we are failing to properly take care of our most trusted asset — our Sailors.”
In the four-page letter to senior military officials, Crozier said only a small contingent of infected sailors have been off-boarded. Most of the crew remain aboard the ship, where following official guidelines for 14-day quarantines and social distancing is impossible.
“Due to a warship’s inherent limitations of space, we are not doing this,” Crozier wrote. “The spread of the disease is ongoing and accelerating.”
Crozier went through the proper channels but one copy of his letter made its way to the press. This resulted in the acting Secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly, relieving him of command -- supposedly for not ensuring his letter was not leaked to the press.
On Thursday, after the letter was leaked to the San Francisco Chronicle, the acting secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly, declared that he’d “lost confidence” in the captain and was therefore relieving him of his command.
This wasn't necessarily Modly's idea. But it appears to be Modly's idea of what he thought the Commander-in-Chief would want him to do.
Two days later, David Ignatius reported in the Washington Post that Modly had told associates he’d acted at the behest of President Donald Trump. Modly then phoned Ignatius at 1 a.m. to deny the story, saying he’d moved against Crozier before he heard from Trump. Rather, he acted in anticipation that Trump would want him to do so.
The removal of Crozier from the ship should have been the first indication the Navy would be unable to control this narrative. Several recordings exist of Crozier's exit from the ship, accompanied by sailors applauding him and chanting his name. Here's one of them:
Modly made it worse by boarding the ship and addressing the sailors. His efforts to win hearts and minds consisted of telling sailors to stop complaining and do their jobs, punctuated by him insulting the man he had fired.
“If he didn't think, in my opinion, that this information wasn't going to get out into the public, in this day and information age that we live in, then he was either A, too naive, or too stupid to be a commanding officer of a ship like this,” Modly told the Theodore Roosevelt’s crew on April 5. “The alternative is that he did this on purpose. And that's a serious violation of the UCMJ which you are all familiar with.”
A recording of this speech leaked, too. An unknown sailor speaks for everyone at the 1:57 mark, when he responds to Modly's "too naive or too stupid" comment with a very audible "WHAT THE FUCK?"
The Navy's damage control continues, but it appears to consist solely of dispatching more shovels and shovel operators to its hole. A self-serving communication from Navy brass telling sailors to STFU about the Crozier debacle was leaked to another journalist, which made its way to social media immediately.
Here's the best bit of Navy's insistent self-Streisanding:
*** Please engage with your sailors onboard and let them know that they need the person's permission to record them and put them online. If they posted SECNAV's 1MC remarks on social media, they need to take them down immediately. ***
It does not get any less laughable:
I know everyone's emotions are running high but posting negative comments on social media regarding Senior Leaders will not help our current situation.
[...]
Bashing a Senior Leader online will not rally the troops.
Looks like the troops are plenty rallied already, judging from the fond farewell they gave to their unceremoniously shit-canned senior officer. And they seemed pretty united in their rejection of SECNAV Modly's "shut up and go back to work" speech.
Modly appears to have belatedly realized his speech to the Theodore Roosevelt sailors was a mistake. But his non-apology isn't going to make things any better. Modly wants people to believe he was misunderstood by everyone that heard his comments, rather than actually take responsibility for the things he said.
I want to apologize to the Navy for my recent comments to the crew of the TR. Let me be clear, I do not think Captain Brett Crozier is naive or stupid. I think, and always believed him to be the opposite. [...] I apologize for any confusion this choice of words might have caused.
Shorter Modly: "I'm sorry you thought I called Crozier naive and stupid when I was calling him naive and stupid."
This whole response has been the epitome of "naive and stupid." The Navy's best option for letting this debacle get swept under the tidal wave of news that flows through social media every day would have been to let its original response -- given to the San Francisco Chronicle -- be its only response. Within 48 hours, no one would have cared. But it chose to fire an obviously-beloved and respected captain, insult him in front of his crew, and threaten unhappy personnel with punishment for sharing anything about this on social media. The Navy's measured response to the leak of Crozier's letter is all but forgotten now, buried under layer after layer of self-sabotaging hubris.
And, of course, as the finishing touches were being put on this post, Modly announced he was resigning. Apparently he realized that he was either "too stupid or too naive" to run the Navy, if he didn't realize how nearly all of his decisions in the last few days would play out.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brett crozier, coverup, covid-19, donald trump, leadership, leaks, streisand effect, thomas modly, us navy, uss theodore roosevelt, whistleblowing
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This whole thing has exposed serious deficiencies among the senior leadership - enlisted as well as officer - among all the services.
There are CSM's out there telling troops that getting a haircut is more important than social distancing.
There's a fucking GENERAL OFFICER who is going around to troop's off-base private housing to ensure they're in their uniform between 0630 and 1700. Some units are demanding service members download specific videoconferencing apps so they can check. Nevermind that 95% of the E-5 and below don't actually have anything to do - paperwork, etc - and couldn't do it anyway since they wouldn't have remote access to the military networks - being too junior.
There's one commander that put out an 'order' that not only do troops need their BC's permission to leave (or return to) base but that their dependent do also. And, knowing that dependents aren't actually subject to his orders, put out that the servicemember will be punished for any violation by their dependents.
It took until recently for the first Army unit to respond appropriately.
https://twitter.com/SGMtheMan1/status/1247546841442508806
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Disasters really do bring out the best in some people, while exposing the horrid rot in others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The best part is the acting SecNav relieving the CO because he failed to keep the letter out of the press.
And then turns around and utterly fails to keep his address to the crew out of the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, how do you, as a senior leader, act like this leak was an emergency?
He claims he moved to relieve the skipper because he thought that that was what the President was going to want - but there would have been plenty of time to send Trump an email, at the least, and get a response.
Dude just panicked. And it sounds like he's too stupid to run the Navy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sounds to me like Trump wanted him fired and didn't want to have it impact his reelection. Trump probably let Moldy know to take the blame or get fired. Good old gaslighter Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's . . . highly unlikely. People simply aren't that loyal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Actually it sounds like Modly is that loyal to Trump. And the military should learn to make common sence decisions for itself and not worry what Trump and his ilk think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Strangely, it seems pretty likely.
There have been quite a number of cases in the past few years where people showed uncanny loyalty, which is all the more surprising when you see how Trump "rewards" loyalty. :\ A single step out of bounds, even by accident, and you get fired and flamed both online and in the media. I'm surprised anyone is still willing to work for him at this point, let alone take the fall for any of his antics.
So I wouldn't be surprised either way:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip
This is not surprising as our leaders are micro-managers who wish to control everything. Not because the would, or could, do a better job than the subject matter experts, but because the want the credit for every success. Firing is their methodology for dealing with failures, rather that coaching and counseling and retaining that expertise. Of course, not all subordinate positions are subject matter experts. There are the appointees.
They should have watched Star Wars more closely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will s
Honestly, its not that their credit hogs. Its that they're afraid of a mistake by a subordinate.
'zero defect mentality'. You can't make mistakes or your career is over. You can't let your subs make mistakes or your career is over.
But you can't do it all. The best military leaders have been those who cultivate a culture of ownership of tasks. Who give their subordinates the authority to go along with the responsibility, support them.
But the hardest thing for a manager to do is sit there waiting for a subordinate to take hours to screw up something they could have done correctly in 10 minutes. But its absolutely essential to provide a certain amount of 'safe space' to fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USS Barbra Streisand
Manned by a Modly crew.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Jo-8ObCqs0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas Modly has already resigned
Now I wonder if Crozier will get his job back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thomas Modly has already resigned
Highly doubtful given the nature of what was publicly disclosed and his apparent not informing his immediate superior in charge of the entire carrier battle group, RADM Stuart Baker, of what he was doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thomas Modly has already resigned
He deliberately did not inform his superior of sending this e-mail, and seeing that Crozier was a career officer he'd asked about what was in the e-mail already but got rebuffed or more likely his superior officer got rebuffed.
By informing his superior officer he'd either:
1) Be ordered to not send the e-mail. Putting him in a bind for having to chose between disobeying a direct order or not trying to get his ship back up to respectable amount of readiness in a short period while at the same time less of his subordinates get ill.
2) Implicate his direct superior when it gets out that said superior agreed with was put in the e-mail.
That leaves the other charge. Not using SIPR while the e-mail is technically about the readiness of the carrier he commanded. Even though the state of the TR as out of action due to COVID-19 was known for a week it wasn't declassified so still a sensitive subject that could not be communicated over NIPR (the same shit happened when Snowden leaked and intelligence agency people could basically not read some newspaper articles).
They will use that as a reason why they can't reinstate him in his old job, at best he'll get a dead end job at the headquarters and no chance on promotion ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thomas Modly has already resigned
You're a bit quick assuming he didn't inform his immediate superior first.
There is quite a good chance he did and was either denied or ignored.
If he didn't, then there is a good case to be made that he tried to bypass his hierarchy without good reason. But I wouldn't assume that so without proof.
We actually still know too little to be judgmental. And given the current administration, I doubt we'll know anything for sure until... at least a complete reorganization of the whole administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Modly's speech to the crew had all the hallmarks of "the beatings will continue until the morale improves".
For a crew member to publicly speak up like he did is a damn good indication the crew is not happy with how the navy is handling the situation. Sailors have complained amongst themselves since the first time man made a boat, but they also know to avoid being directly disrespectful in such a public forum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We are not at war" is good enough to dismiss him anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What he actually meant
I think it's worse than how your summation of his comments implied, instead it should be: "I'm sorry you thought I called the captain stupid when I said he was either stupid or a criminal, I obviously meant he was a criminal."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Every US 'war' starts by sacrificing the Navy.
The US Navy lost over 900 American ships and over 6,000 American seamen were impressed into the English navy before Congress declared war in 1812. The Gulf of Tonkin was BS & the USS Stark (1987) had turned off all defenses; the sacrifice list is long.
Theodore Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the US Navy from 1897-98, and made sure his cousin FDR (TR's brother was Eleanor's father) had the same post from 1913 to 1920. Adm. Harold Stark was Chief of Naval Operations when Pearl Harbor was struck, so he was given a administrative post in England for the duration.
In 1941 film director John Ford (he married the niece of Rear Admiral Victor Blue in 1920) started the US Navy photographic branch of the WWII OSS in New York; he was my father's Commander. FDR was fighting his US Navy so the OSS was paid out of the Embassy in London. Flying to Panama in December of 1941, Ford and my father sent back scathing Navy problems to the White House. Admiral Halsey blocked the OSS out of the war in the Pacific until the winter of 1944.
From Ecuador, Peru, Azores, Martinique, North Africa, North Ireland and English warships, Pop sent a film record to FDR, and was a Ford pallbearer in 1973. Pop was awarded a 'Legion of Merit' by the US Army. Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Every US 'war' starts by sacrificing the Navy.
Remember the Liberty being attacked by Israel during the 7 Day War in 1967? Do not recall the health and safety of those sailors being more important than all else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fuck all you globalist idiots and your comments about the US. Say any more and we’ll nuke all you foreigner pricks until you glow like fireflies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nah, we'll be fine with our correct and effective response to the pandemic that's bringing infections and deaths down quite nicely and should lead to a relative return to normality before too long.
You enjoy the thousands of exponentially increasing unnecessary deaths caused by your corrupt and ineffective administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice to know Iran pays your bills, Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm one of your neighbors. Nuke away, motherfucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I’m not a foreigner (nor is the writer of the article), and I happen to agree wholeheartedly with those “globalist idiots” and “foreigner pricks”, at least on this issue. Also, what does globalism have to do with any of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Globalist" is a dogwhistle for "Jew."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, its not
No, its not. Why does Techdirt tolerate you divisive, bi-polar, binary minded race baiters?
Oh, yeah, never mind:
globalist
[ˈɡlōbəlist]
NOUN
a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world.ADJECTIVE
relating to or advocating the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis.Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and a few of the other top tens include Mexicans, and a Frenchman as I recall; these aren't Jewish, but they are very much globalists.
Look what they've done to your brain! (Whoever they are)
[car-wash grade scrubbing and gurgling sounds of brainwashing as Toom1275 squawks talking points like a Mockingbird " A little to the left, no right. Yeah, right there, on my cerebellum. Maybe scrub the lizard brain while your at it, my kneejerk is a little off.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chain of Command Problem
I am hearing a lot the he should have done this via his chain of command rather than including others in his letter.
I call bullshit on that one. They only reason he would have sent the letters out was if his superiors were not taking care of the problem.
This is a guy that is charge of a aircraft carrier. That is not a post they give to just anyone, he was a highly regarded carrier officer. There is no way in hell he would just jump out and start sending letters like he did unless the people above him were failing to take care of the situation like they should have.
From what I have read and considering there is probably no evidence one way or the other his superiors were more worried about keeping staffing up than making sure the sailors were safe.
His point about not being at war does seem to be addressing this exact issue. Since we are not currently in a shooting war. Did the navy think having the carrier down for a week or two before they could replace the crew was going to cause some country to attack us? Seriously?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Chain of Command Problem
The Theodore Roosevelt is one of several vessels that make up the US Navy’s Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group homeported in San Diego. In addition to the carrier and its associated air wing the strike group includes one guided missile cruiser and five guided missile destroyers, making the group the largest of all current carrier strike groups. While each vessel is under the command of a senior officer, all the vessels in the group are under the command and control of a Rear Admiral who is stationed on board the Roosevelt. It has been reported that the captain of the Roosevelt did not inform the strike group commander of what he was doing, thus bypassing the most important person in the chain of command...the strike group commander responsible for the entire strike group.
Seems to me more than a trifling oversight of a proposed course of action that would stop the entire strike group in its tracks and sideline operational capabilities for an extended period of time to not first inform and coordinate with the person in charge...the strike group commander.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Chain of Command Problem
I've got two words for you: plausible deniability.
Just cause the Navy says the Rear Admiral was not informed does not make it true. For a captain to go around the Admiral that is there on ship with him, either there was something seriously wrong or that conversation happened and the Admiral was not listening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Chain of Command Problem
The strike force commander is reported as having stated that the carrier’s commanding officer did not consult with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Chain of Command Problem
As a member of the E-4 Mafia I can clearly say the top brass on the ship was aware of the situation. You cant take a ship like this off course with out his awareness.
The offical statement is he was not consulted, which is just full of weasel words as the top onboard doctor, the entire bridge crew, and anyone on coms would at min had known of the situation to pull a ship this large into Port.
The Commanding Officer knew he was taking a risk after his official channels gave no orders or gave the same guidance everyone else was getting and told to carry on the mission.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Chain of Command Problem
The issue wasn't pulling into Guam. Obviously the TG commander knew that was happening - he is the one who would have arranged for it to happen and ordered the carrier's captain into port.
The CO's concern was that everyone was locked down on the carrier pierside instead of getting the infected off and into quarantine on the shore.
Navy wanted everyone to stay on the ship, not be bussed out, to ensure the ship was ready to surge at any time. 'Readiness' at all costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I just assumed Trump was a horrible, horrible person you see.'
Two days later, David Ignatius reported in the Washington Post that Modly had told associates he’d acted at the behest of President Donald Trump. Modly then phoned Ignatius at 1 a.m. to deny the story, saying he’d moved against Crozier before he heard from Trump. Rather, he acted in anticipation that Trump would want him to do so.
'I sacked a well loved commanding officer for bringing attention to a risk to the troops because I figured Trump would want that' is quite the damning thing both on his part and Trump's. 'It is better to fire someone trying to expose a risk than admit that risk exists' is a dangerous mindset in a good time, during a global pandemic when lives are literally on the line it's straight up psychotic/sociopathic, 'I don't care who suffers or dies so long as it doesn't impact me'.
Bashing a Senior Leader online will not rally the troops.
'... as everyone knows, when you're bashing an officer you have to do it in person, to the entire ship they used to command. That's how you rally the troops.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'I just assumed Trump was a horrible, horrible person you se
"'I sacked a well loved commanding officer for bringing attention to a risk to the troops because I figured Trump would want that' is quite the damning thing both on his part and Trump's."
I've said it before - it's now a cult. Pleasing Dear Leader is now more important to his followers than common sense or self protection.
"'... as everyone knows, when you're bashing an officer you have to do it in person, to the entire ship they used to command. That's how you rally the troops.'"
But, he's a Trump fan. How can he get lauded for shining praise upon him if he doesn't do it publicly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just remember all this crap when you vote in November....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
China?!?! (5:40)
He has the audacity to blame China for not being forthcoming with the dangers of this virus as he ignores his own officer telling him it's dangerous on the ship?!?! (starts at 5:40)--"We don't do that in the Navy; we're transparent with each other".
Resignation was too good for him. UCMJ his ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can we nominate an article name for funniest comment of the week?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What would Comrade Xi want us to do?
Let's just remember that the late doctor who first alerted Chinese authorities to COVID-19 was disciplined for causing unnecessary disharmony. Afterwards it turned out that the story of heroism and right and wrong had to be rewritten, but because it was not actually Xi but only the ghost of Xi that had been invoked, the party could claim that they would not have done it that way.
Now Modly has fired Crozier because he thought that would be what Trump had wanted, leaving Trump with the option of stating that was not what he would have wanted, in case this backfired.
Sounds very much like the U.S. has turned into mimicking China's broken implementation of communism.
And considering the unbelievable amount of people who got fired because not secondguessing Trump correctly, one can hardly blame those who are faced with the option of getting fired right away or get extended time until they are needed as a scapegoat, when they guess what Trump would have done (and more likely than not guess right) and then get fired when it turns out that what Trump would have done would have been even more of a publicity shipwreck than his usual actions.
The problem with curating lines of scapegoats like Trump does is that at some point of time the competent people do not even bother lining up any more.
Trump is creating a government of incompetence because joining the Trump government is not a career move for competent people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something that keeps getting overlooked is that Modly flew EIGHT THOUSAND MILES to personally dress down the crew for liking a guy who fought for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And then he had the gall to say “I do not think Captain Brett Crozier is naïve nor stupid” well after he said Capt. Crozier was “too stupid or too naive to be a commanding officer of a ship”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Look, I know you're all too stupid to understand me...'
Which basically means that he called both their former commanding officer and them stupid, him for his actions, and them for thinking that they have five-second memories and wouldn't be able to remember what he said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Visit a crew where the virus is circulating, and them fly home, shouldn't he be in a fortnights quarantine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you have to explain.....
If you have to personally explain to an entire unit why you sacked their CO, you have already fucked up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Difference in leadership
And here we can see the difference in leadership between the two men. One that fights for his men even at his own personal cost. An the other that throws his subordinate under a bus because that is what he thinks his boss will want.
I know who I would serve under.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is the administration this clever?
I know that Techdirt has largely descended to a merely anti-Trump site; too bad it use to be quite beneficial when it was more balanced.
However, let me suggest another possibility. The American people are not by nature a patient people. I've been hearing a lot of grumbling about Covid-19. People are getting tired of it. Unfortunately, Covid-19 can't be wished away.
Thus, it would be beneficial to the administration (and it's opponents) to distract the population from their own unhappiness.
Is this spat truly what it appears on the surface, or is it a situation that popped up and has been cleverly (but ethically questionably) manipulated to provide a way for the public to vent a little frustration? The officer in question is a well regarded, skilled individual (he wouldn't be in command of the TR if he wasn't). Thus, he may well accept a certain amount of public ill treatment in the line of duty, hopefully with a proper recompense later.
I would expect Trump, Republicans and Democrats all to be looking to start implementing ways to distract the public soon. People are getting restless. Restless people often do dumb things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The public didn’t, and still doesn’t, need this situation for an opportunity to vent frustration at the Trump administration. In this case, the simplest explanation…
…is the correct one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the administration this clever?
The reasonn the site isn't "balanced" is because Trump isn't balanced. It isn't a bias if there is nothing good to report from him with the bad. That Trump is bad is being inpartial because of his actions and evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the administration this clever?
Do you want Techdirt to point out bullshit or sweep it under the rug with some bland "all opinions have equal merit"?
Perhaps it has escaped your notice, but Trump and his administration are so far away from balanced they can come - which means there is no way to present a balanced view of them since that would mean implicitly agreeing what they are doing have merit.
It should be added that the Democrats isn't exactly showering themselves in glory either, but their ability to fuck up the USA is severely limited in comparison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is the administration this clever?
Today, to claim that "both sides" are equally bad is to deliberately lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is the administration this clever?
Pretty much...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is the administration this clever?
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the administration this clever?
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arguing that point becomes harder when you know the site defended (to some extent) Fox News, of all news outlets, the other day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also anti-republican, anti-democrat, anti-young, anti-old...
They're actually correct, just not in the way they think they are.
TD is 'anti-Trump' in the sense that they will call out or praise a person or group as appropriate, and as Trump has a wee bit of a tendency to do/say stupid and/or dangerous things on a regular basis he tends to get slammed on an equally regular basis, right alongside other people doing/saying stupid and/or dangerous things
To the extent that TD is 'anti-Trump' it's because TD is anti-corruption and/or incredibly stupid ideas, it's hardly TD's fault that Trump falls into one or both of those categories so often and therefore earns less than glowing articles about him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is the administration this clever?
and here I thought it was all of humanity that has "descended" to being anti-trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the administration this clever?
too bad it use to be quite beneficial when it was more balanced.
Let's say someone beat the shit out of a trump supporter.
In terms of being "balanced" would media be deficient if they didn't give an equal amount of coverage to the person who beat up the trump supporter? His motivations, his dreams, his struggles, his philosophy - all in his own words, of course because hearing only the side of the guy who got his ass kicked wouldn't be hearing both sides of the story. It would clearly be biased towards the red-hat wearing chud with the dent in his head.
Then extrapolate that to someone who murders someone else, a drunk driver who kills someone, etc. - how does your "balanced" philosophy look then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the administration this clever?
"I know that Techdirt has largely descended to a merely anti-Trump site"
I will give credit where credit's due. It's not my problem that Trump's not presented anything worthy of credit yet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the administration this clever?
No, it's not that clever.
Because the public hasn't been venting frustration when, exactly?
You'd be very, very surprised to see how many positions of authority are filled with people whose entire skillset is throwing a temper tantrum. The armed forces - infantry, navy, air force - aren't immune to this. I'd say it's even worse in there because of all the bureaucracy and chain of command that gets in the way of reporting actual wrongdoing and bullshittery pulled off by the idiots in charge.
Exhibit A, this dumbass original post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is the administration this clever?
So, you're bitching about Techdirt's anti-Trump bias (TDS is annoying) while at the same time pitching a far-fetched conspiracy theory that the CO of a carrier - a guy who's at the top of his game and, if he performs well, is on his way to getting a start - is going to sacrifice two decades of hard work to serve as a POLITICAL DISTRACTION?
Look I know people think everyone in the military are Republicans (and sure, there's a right-leaning bias there) but very few of them are political operatives who give a shit who is in office.
No, the CO didn't agree to be sacrificed to be a short term distraction for unspecified 'later compensation'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Captain relieved of command
Rumor on the street. Ship dock somewhere while virus was active and this is why sailors contacted the virus. Can you confirm? Or comment how did they become ill if they were out to sea? Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Captain relieved of command
And do you have evidence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Captain relieved of command
It's an aircraft carrier, and can have people and supplies and viruses flown in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Captain relieved of command
Of course that is what happened?
Do you think these ships spend 6 months straight at sea?
No, the carrier pulls into port every 3-4 weeks. Its only when doing actual, you know, war stuff, that we would stay out - I did 4 months straight during Desert Storm.
At some point - either just before deployment or during a port period - someone or someone's onboard had contact with someone infected. That's not even a rumor, that's just physics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Captain relieved of command
Hell man, they were in Vietnam at the beginning of March.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Captain relieved of command
What difference does that make?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Assuming that covid19 or whatever the latest name of this virus is now actually started in China, can someone explain the differences between what happened there to the doctors etc who discovered it and tried to spread knowledge of it's existance? Not only were they stopped from doing so but received 'severe punishments'. So what 'the acting secretary of the Navy, Thomas Modly' did is not only as bad but considering, as usual, the USA has been the greatest crier of what happened in Wuhan that prevented the World from getting knowledge of this virus sooner, was an absolute disgrace! Resigning was the easy way out but should be the least of his 'punishments'! Knowing the way the Trump government operates, however, the strategy of 'throw as much blame about as many things in as many directions as possible' to distract from the truth, will undoubtedly be used again! Much better to save face and deny than have the balls to stick uo your hand!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"this virus is now actually started in China"
We do not know this.
The first known case of the disease in a human, caused by this virus, was reportedly from China. The origin of the virus is unknown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with this captain is that he decided to engage in an insubordinate patrern of hystrionics that resulted in a massive leak.
You do not bring problems on deployment to the public, and you do not treat your ship as a democracy, and you do not go outside the chain of command.
He didn't even take this up with Navy Medical. That's the only way to trump.a line officer, and this was a medical circumstance.
The court of public opinion is no place for this, that captain was grossly negligent if not deliberate in putting it there, and those standing orders and military regulations, that he violated, exist to prevent deaths that prevent civilian deaths and the do not change because he wants to blame superiors, look incapable, leak to the press and generally run his mouth in a way that is causing casualties.
The man is stupid. Willfully stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think he had the ship vote about what actions to take. Your mistake is to assume that outside of a democracy, nobody can be bothered about the fate of their subordinates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the chain of command doesn’t give a shit about saving the lives of sailors potentially infected with COVID-19, the chain of command can go fuck itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I take it you did not serve in the military.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, Is that you, Col. Jessup?
And so what if he didn't?
The "A Few Good Men" rule still applies.
Except when the "perteck and serv Murricans show up: Then all bets for *constitutional liberty and freedom for civilians and whistle blowers are off
"Apparently he’s not very happy down here in Shangri-la because he’s written letters to everyone but Santa Claus asking for a transfer and now he’s telling tales about a fence line shooting, Matthew? “- Jessup
And the post-mortem on actual democracy rather than military and police mob rule says:
..."You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives!"
SO, Colonel, did the military somehow via programs like the USAF OSID and Naval Intelligence figure out a way to silence even those brave Few?
Oh, yeah: organized gang stalking is like, a thing, Cap'n. Go recruit somewhere else, and eat this demotion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC, Is that you, Col. Jessup?
We’re talking here about the captain who wrote the letter that got leaked and the fact that it got leaked. This specific conversation is not about the superior officer who fired him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC, Is that you, Col. Jessup?
"The "A Few Good Men" rule still applies"
You do know that's a work of fiction, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AC, Is that you, Col. Jessup?
"And so what if he didn't?"
It is apparent in what was typed. Lots of opinion about how the service members should act, while not having served. Sounds a bit like donny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AC, Is that you, Col. Jessup?
No, its not apparent.
Fuck you, and you, and your quaint, outdated notions of service.
And, fuck your notions of "service for or to the people" too.
None of you have protected or served ME the fact finding citizen, EVER.
Eat shit, Govtroll.
Honestly, a bullet in your face would not bother me at all. None of you have more courage than me, ever, anywhere, EVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
OK, fair enough.
What, you think he had a shipwide vote? The man's point was that, not being at war, there's no reason to risk incapacitating the whole crew - and thus taking the carrier out of play altogether.
Yeah, no. Sometimes you do. And yes, there are consequences for doing so if you're not 100000% in the right. But, FFS man, we have a procedure specifically for when you need to jump the chain of command. We also have whistleblower procedures and protections. Its very much acknowledge that sometime you are morally obligated to route around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...and you do not go outside the chain of command.
Remember that defense didn't work in Nuremberg.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What hystrionics are you talking about? All he did was send a letter through the proper channels about a significant (and perfectly reasonable) concern he had. The letter itself is also perfectly reasonable and measured in tone. He got fired after the letter got leaked to the press somehow, but I haven’t seen anything suggesting he was being emotional or dramatic or anything about that or the contents of his letter or anything else, at least not in public. I’m not seeing any “hystrionics” on the part of the captain here.
Again, what are you talking about? From the article:
So yeah, we don’t know that Crozier did any of what you said he did. As far as we know, he sent the letter through the proper channels and only through the proper channels. He had nothing to do with the letter getting leaked to the press. He did not “bring problems on the deployment to the public,” he didn’t “treat [his] ship like a democracy,” and he didn’t “go outside the chain of command.”
We don’t know that, and it wouldn’t actually change our ad hoc judgment of the situation, either.
Debatable, but irrelevant where Crozier had nothing to do with the letter getting leaked in the first place.
Again, he never put it there. He didn’t leak the letter to the press; someone did, but it wasn’t him.
He never violated orders or any regulations. Everything he did went through the proper channels, and he never went outside those channels on this prior to the leak and him being fired. Also, how exactly would violating these orders and regulations he supposedly violated cause civilian deaths, anyways?
I don’t see anything Crozier did that would make him “look incapable”. Also, once again, he didn’t leak anything to the press. He also hasn’t “run his mouth” at all. Even if he had, how has anything that has happened in this whole mess since his letter was first leaked (which, again, was done by someone else, by the way) caused any casualties at all?
Someone was being stupid, but it wasn’t Crozier. Once could argue that you’re being willfully stupid by ignoring the fact that the article makes it clear that Crozier had nothing to do with his letter or anything else getting leaked to the press or the public.
(BTW, for the purposes of this discussion, I’m not addressing whether or not anyone else was right to leak any of this, whether or not Crozier would have been right to leak any of it if he had done so, or whether or not I agree with what you said about making problems public and such in the abstract, in theory, or in general (as opposed to in this case or as applied here). Those are separate issues I don’t really have to reach because the captain never leaked anything in the first place.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You are uttering a vague generality in a counter-intelligent manner, and using the word mistake.
The function of the military is to destroy its enemies by any means, and preferably the least costly, in a time of war. It is centrally planned, it is a juggernaut killing force, it is a surveillance apparatus, it is repellent, it is a mechanism that works most swiftly, not a result of dialogue, as a result of faithfully and efficiently and with a minimum of dissent, following orders.
It is not a democracy. If you are slow to follow, you are dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The recruitment office is down the street and to the right, perhaps you should sign up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To wit: the more than 12,000 dead Americans and the hundreds of thousands infected with COVID-19, which includes numerous sailors aboard that ship — and Capt. Crozier himself.
Capt. Crozier sent a letter that he thought needed sending, possibly because he didn’t feel that the Navy brass cared about the best interests of the sailors aboard his ship. If Navy leadership is more embarassed about someone calling out its heel-dragging than about the heel-dragging itself, Crozier isn’t the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And this is how you get people thinking that the military treats civilians as the enemy - because all that gung-ho wartime bravado isn't used during times when you're under enemy fire. No, instead it's used to justify whiny manchildren who can't stand the possibility of getting their fee-fees hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And that is all relevant in this case because…?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, the military's function is not to destroy its enemies by any means. To start with - crimes against humanity and all that limit the means with which we are allowed to destroy things. Secondly, the military has no enemies. The military is a tool. We break heads and cities but those aren't our enemies. Those are the nation's. Big difference in outlook. Finally, our purpose is to allow the nation to impose its will on other people. Sometimes that involves killing. Sometimes its involves looking hard. Sometimes it involves building things for other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Travel to Guam
I think you're missing an important point:
Modly flew from Washington DC to the ship, which is in Guam, which is 5,600 miles away, to give his speech to the crew.
Then he flew another 5,600 miles back to Washington after his speech was over!
That's it- there was no other reason for him to fly all the way to Guam and back!
So not only was his speech a waste of breath, it was a waste of tax-payer dollars!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Travel to Guam
And an example of not what to do when there is a pandemic that has hit the people he went to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just another political whistle blower, like Reality Winner.
These political minded (D) shitbags are no Edward Snowden/WIlliam Binney/Dianne Roark/other actual whistle blower that sounds the alarm for all citizens rights.
The bell tolls for them alone.
Good riddance, despite the courage. He should have spoken up when the Navy was busted listening to US citizens from offshore in 2003-2020, but he didn't.
Enjoy your free COVID sample, comrade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know, it’s a funny thing — if all whistleblowers are Democrats, as you imply, what does that say about Republicans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there any specific reason to believe this guy in particular was personally involved in those incidents or had particular knowledge of them prior to the leaks?
Also, it sounds like you just have a problem with the fact that he didn’t speak up about some other, completely unrelated issue and so won’t give credit when he does speak up. Dude, a whistleblower can still be beneficial even if they don’t blow the whistle on every issue.
Finally, I don’t see anything political about the captain or his actions here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I didn't imply *all* of anything
Roark, Binney, Wiebe, Loomis, Drake, Snowden....andddd Reality Winner?
Naw, they don't belong in the same sentence, ever. I singled out two whistle-blowers who likely, and obviously have political motivations, Winner most tellingly a complete useful idiot who was wrong, BTW.
And this as opposed to solid women like Dianne Roark, a former intel committee, and (R) staffer. I am certain she went against everything she ever believed to do what she did.
yeah, (R)s are generally a shit stance on anything, but not all of them; and the bravest of our WBs may actually be (D), most notably Ed Snowden.
I suspect Bill Binney is an (R) too, though I never asked him; and a few others who actually believed in their oaths to our nation are politically ambiguous.
SO, like I said: where are these people's brave voices when their party is in office?
Crickets.
Reality Winner has to be the dumbest blower ever, trusting the ADL monitored Intercept with anything.
(And yes, before you get your tighty whiteys all bundled up in those brilliant ADL sock puppet rhetorical flourishes, the Omidyar network, the Intercept and the ADL are all bro's:
https://www.omidyar.com/news/leading-tech-platforms-and-cyber-experts-join-new-adl-advisory-board-c lamp-down-online-hate before you)
That's why I raise awareness differently than those idiots. I know what I am up against, and who.
Do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I didn't imply *all* of anything
"I know what I am up against, and who."
It's a shame that the why is a fiction of your own imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also the who and the what more often than not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I didn't imply *all* of anything
When replying to someone, please use the “reply to this” link rather than starting a new thread. It greatly improves readability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I didn't imply *all* of anything
What does Reality Winner, the Intercept, the ADL, or tech platforms and cyber experts have to do with this article in particular or the events described in this article?
I think a lot of people are perplexed about what or who you think you’re up against, but those who do know generally think that you have a tendency to bark up the wrong tree in a way that, even if you were barking up the right tree, would be—at best—completely ineffective (and is often counterproductive).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You stupid, vapid, illiterate bastard, please go catch the new flu.
Maybe, learn to read: The Intercept virtually sold Reality Winner to the feds. At least JUlia Assange tried to help his source stay anon.
And, yup, hmmm(checks notes) the *usual suspects were involved:
https://www.omidyar.com/news/leading-tech-platforms-and-cyber-experts-join-new-adl-advisor y-board-c lamp-down-online-hate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Again, please use “reply to this” when addressing someone specific. Also, again, how is this at all relevant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Forum conventions aren't my bag
Um, can you cite the rule that says I have to reply to a specific in-house TD troll, rather than the group think that is on display with some of you here?
I can't find that rule in the Good Manners Guide, which none of TDs shit slinging in-house bonobos have NEVER READ.
That said, some sperg idiot (bhull)said this in another thread, and it seems to apply here:
it still leans more towards the null hypothesis than not, and there is no strong reason to believe the results will differ from that
Yeah, I like how you cherry pick your evidence to fit your narrative.
So, yeah, um, no. In my newsroom, Winners BS would have been put into the political opinion column, not a deep investigative lead at all.
As for Captain COVID, his story does touch a nerve, because it is an example of how our (bi-partisan) military has eroded protections for soldiers/sailors, and how that thin blue line mentality starts there, and leaks out into policing across America.
But if that's the case, why don't you and a few other cockblocks here get off your Liketivist asses and get out in the real world to fight against these things?
In the meantime, I was being gang stalked across several US states because I investigated friendly fire incidents and how those who want to blow the whistle are frequently driven to acts of irrationality (Walter Laak, one of the fall guys in the Abu Ghraib scandal is a prime example) helped build the manufactured terrorists narrative, and more, while you spergs were playing Yugioh on your moms computer, and wanking it to Manga.
And to boot, I was well aware of your type of useful idiots going back as far as the Agent Orange (Eat some for Breakfast!) thingy, and tholidimide, and depleted uranium dropped on children's playgrounds all across the ME. I knew some of Dr. D.E. Camerons research subjects who had electroshock therapy.
SO, null hypotheses up your ass, pal.
And enjoy that 5g mast on your roof. Hell, put one in the kitchen, and save money, and electricity by tossing out your kitchen microwave.
But for me, I would rather err on on the side of sceptical until all the evidence is in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
"Um, can you cite the rule that says I have to reply to a specific in-house TD troll, rather than the group think that is on display with some of you here?"
You are responding to specific people in your posts, you just lack the intelligence and/or decency to make the thread easy to follow.
"In the meantime, I was being gang stalked across several US states"
Those hallucinations are real jerks, aren't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
repetition of citation please, PaulT, Techdirt in-house trolls, foreign influence campaigns, psychiatric meta-narrative.
Thanks for playing ROGS Bingo!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
Hey, you found the reply to link!
"Techdirt in-house trolls, foreign influence campaigns, psychiatric meta-narrative."
What are words that insane pricks trying to avoid conversations they know will reveal factual information would use?
I'm sorry I'm not good at Jeopardy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
Re: PaulT, TD forum phishing attacks,identity theft,factual information
Sure, Paul, let me send you ( a complete troll from Spain) my social security number, birth certificate, sexual liason history with photos, and a map to my child's daycare ( or maybe a Facebook link).
Nice try, pallywhacker.
But I have addressed your points elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
Obviously I meant factual information about the random bullshit arguments you try spewing, not personal information
Why do all of your arguments avoid facts so much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discourse space
Fuck, you got me. Apparently, you, PaulT, a robot from Thpain who describes itself as the "lazy, anti-social", and I a human being from the world population, who describes himself as a target of governmet/NGO/other institutional harassment and curiously, as a trained journalist (WTF!?) interpret facts differently.
And I even erred in classic type 1 errors of reference, as I cannot always tell you and nasch apart, one from another.
You both are binary thinkers, typical programmatic, rule based, I/O binary excercises in binary oriented speech, rather than what humans have/do, which is conversations which have lots of gray area.
At one point, I responded to him/her/them as if they were you/them/him.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200402/16013744227/sheriffs-office-that-employed-d eputy-facing-9-lawsuits-44-criminal-charges-says-it-has-lost-all-his-dashcam-footage.shtml?threaded= true#c882
Later, I realized the core problem, and tried to negotiate a truce between us humans (me/us/them, sometimes) versus you binary I/O types (you, him, them, always)
I said:
Then:
OK, sometimes I forget that TDs community is peopled by techish, binary I/O thinkers, whereas I approach language as a multi-tool, with non-binary, and relative, situational meanings and statements.
So, in human language, the term in that statement functions differently than in computer code( or racist speech):
deny
[dəˈnī]
VERB
state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
In this context, my phrase simply did not rule it out; and has has a deeper and more colloquial meaning, cued by para-linguistic cues, whereas your interpretation of that statement is binary, and non-human to some extent.
As in either/or statements:
A disjunction is a set of two statements joined by the word “or”, so that both statements could be true, or only one statement could be true.
That said, So if you do not deny something, then you accept it is stated as a binary, whereas what I actually said has colloquial context cues, and I used disjunctively to a minor extent, because it was a minor point. SO, either/or, if, and, etc.
In linguistics, a disjunct is a type of adverbial adjunct that expresses information that is not considered essential to the sentence it appears in, but which is considered to be the speaker's or writer's attitude towards, or descriptive statement of, the propositional content of the sentence
So,mine does not express a mere binary option, but rather my acknowledgement of the existence of white supremacy as a concept, and feature of American law, culture and politics; and of Russian law, European law, and I might even throw in that Maximilianos in Tlaquepaque, MX probably get better service at upscale restaurants too.
Even your implied version of white supremacy is open to interpretation beyond binaries, unless the goal of the binary speaker is to divide the I from the 0, in which case, even binary conversation cannot occur.
SO we see a problem emerge in the argument here: it's possible that we are speaking entirely different languages.
I will in the futre, try to keep it binary for those of you who failed the basic social interaction class in high school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discourse space
"Apparently, you, PaulT, a robot from Thpain"
I do love the way that you keep trying to attack me with that, even though not only do I live 1000 miles away from the place where you are trying to make fun of, which has a very different accent, I'm not Spanish either. Facts, again, not your strong suit.
But, thanks again for confirming that you're rather spend time typing paragraphs of barely sane nonsense designed to personally attack people rather than address a single verifiable fact.
You'd be hilarious if I didn't oppose making fun of the mentally disabled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discourse sp
Well, first, about your attempt at phishing my personal information:
Your defense:
Obviously I meant factual information
Sure you did, sure you did. Proof or GTFO. Your track record here as a bi-polar anti-social sperg is established, and you have no credibility with me.
And I must say, you are hilarious even as an anti-social nutter. Unlike many, I have no fear of laughing at the mentally challenged whodeploy the psychiatric meta-narrative at every kneejerk opportunity.
Imagine of you could put two human sentences together, just one word at a time. It would look like a two piece, one studded Lego stack. Not very interesting, but hey, its a start.
Maybe with all the free time you spend stewing about my mental health like an OCD ruminator, you could find time to read up on Lego studs?
https://graphicallinearalgebra.net/2015/04/29/dumbing-down-magic-lego-and-the-rules-of-the-ga me-part-1/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discours
"Well, first, about your attempt at phishing my personal information:"
I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion, other than my apparently accurate hypothesis that you are diagnosed with some mental condition.
"Sure you did, sure you did. Proof or GTFO."
Erm... in response to what you were replying to, the burden of proof is yours...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of disc
100% projection like every other accusation he's ever made?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discours
PaulT, psychiatric meta-narrative, forum derailing; Toom1275 (big fans of police unions)
That sounds about right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of disc
I have not seen any evidence that Toom1275 is “a big fan of police unions”; quite the opposite, actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of
Well there's as much evidence of that as for any of his other claims (i.e. zero, but often lots of counter-evidence)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of disc
"forum derailing"
The only posts I'm making are in response to personal attacks on me that you make. Someone's derailing alright, but it's not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed]
Also yes please stop making a new thread every time you want to reply to someone, you look like an asshole when you do it and you’d probably want to avoh what am I saying you’re going to look like an asshole no matter what you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discourse space
I can talk around you if I choose to, because you are an asshole and a forum bully.
And by now, some several years into this non-discussion between myself, who comments here, and you, and those other two-to-seven others who bird-dog my every post, its clear to actual rational people that my goal is NOT to discuss anything with YOU, personally, and never was. Rather, your assaultive language and rhetoric was clearly offensive from the first time I encountered you here.
And that, because only a sadist, a security industry law breaker, or other complete asshat unspecified would ask for such a citation, repeatedly, here at TD. But thanks for saying "please" this time.
Stone, I am still waiting for a [citation that you are in any way an actual human being] and NOT affiliated with an NGO or other comment thread derailing troll farm, or psychiatric meta-narrative Stalinist.
SO, proving a negative is a little bit of a bitch, just like you, and you demonstrate that repeatedly here. Which is why I talk around you, here and elsewhere.
And,Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discourse space is what we--hypothetically You and Me statements, expressed ala Carl Rogers, can be effective in communication, but you are not, nor is that your purpose. Your purpose from my first encounter of you is to enforce some strange collective identity, while maintaining your natal individuation as a special snowflake who feels you have the right to be more offensive than others.
So, any time I attempt to socially distance myself from you, and those other well known TD in-house trolls, you, and he/she/it/they repeatedly assault my posts.
Then, ludicrously, demanding that I address you, personally? Prison gangs of bullies and rapists utilize this EXACT dynamic and demand, as do the come to Jesus types, and K4 affilliated trance formation safespacebuilders.
As I have demonstrated repeatedly, neither of you psychiatric meta-narrative oriented trolls are interested in any actual evidence (even when I provided links to main stream news features, like Rick and Cindy Krlich in Ohio, and Bob Deis in Stockton CA).
Rather, your function here is to disrupt the discourse space, so that you can effectively act as gatekeepers of narrative, much as a bouncer might function, but you with only a vague awareness of what cogliones even are, backed by the TD Insider edition tee shirt squad.
Your entire dialectic functions here as a euphemism for actual rationality and actual skeptical discourse, and in its place, repetitive recitations of [citation needed] almost exactly like the Wikipedia editors who were later found to be spooks, JTRIG and DoD forum derailers, or the well known Big Pharma flacks and their get a tinfoil hat crowd.
So, yeah, unless you can show me the rule that TD has set down about that(which you cannot), well, then there is NO RULE about that, just a few forum bullies superimposing themselves and their personal b.s. into my comment stream here.
In your case, with a few others here, what you are doing is simply online mobbing, which is only part of what gang stalking is, and it can and does occur in far greater frequency, and seldom actually comes offline, statistically.
I suspect--with some hearty evidence--that most are easily forced into conformity via this form of online bullying, redirection, and other cyber warfare directed at persons, but of those of us who refuse to be conformed this way, well, that's another story.
SO, yeah, others are reading in here, and I most frequently choose to talk around both you and PaulT, so stop demanding I talk to you specifically. Its not my job to make it easier for your types to harass me here by following your imaginary thread ruleset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discourse space
"I can talk around you if I choose to"
Yep, and people can call you an asshole for choosing to do that.
It's always impressive how much you type and how little you say, though. I'm sure that effort could be put into improving the world rather than pretending to be an utter loser on a site you claim nobody reads, but you be you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discourse sp
Sure, why not. Perhaps I DO have an asshole, like everyone else. Lets see if I can find it...
This is excellent, BTW:
I laughed. That kind of snark makes you appear human, almost.
Oh, there it is, my asshole! And it has a name!
PaulT, proven liar, COVID-19 conspiracy theory spreader, and this is evidence: a site you claim nobody reads
[citation or the two faced gay puppy gets it]
I have done more for TDs stats in the last year than you have, without a doubt, idiot. At least I'm usefu....oh, never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of discours
Hey, whatever keeps you busy.
"COVID-19 conspiracy theory spreader"
The US has just overtaken Spain in terms of deaths and shows no sign of slowing even though they had weeks to prepare, while our president is talking about starting to ramp down the more severe lockdown restrictions with a view to get things back to normal before the US's cases have stopped increasing.
Meanwhile Trump is trying desperately to promote a miracle cure that's not been tested yet, which is already depriving people who need the drug to live of their vital supplies, and 7 million more people have just been made unemployed, losing their access to healthcare, because Americans have no safety net.
If I'm working with conspiracy theories, I'll take the one that allows me to rejoin my friends shortly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of disc
Here's the real conspiracy theory:
Hypothesis: you are only saying you have friends, here at this forum, because you don't have any real friends. Saying that you have friends does not prove that you have friends, but makes you appear "social" as opposed to "anti-social".
Theory: PaulT is ALWAYS on Techdirts forums, trolling my every post. He will be here tomorrow, and the next day, and the next, trolling my posts, frequently within seconds of me posting.
PaulT has so much time to troll my posts that his behavior resembles an automated bot, or other troll unspecified.
He doesn't have a real life, or any friends, based upon the fact that his computer is his only friend.
Proof and evidence: PaulT cannot prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that he is a) a real person, b) that even IF he were a real person, he has any friends, other then his bare claim here at this forum. And, he will continue to troll my posts , in lieu of having any real friends to troll in real life, simply because of the time he/they/it spends trolling my posts.
Conclusion: PaulT is delusional. Take yer meds!!! (or some gear lube, WD40, or whatever it is that keeps machines running smoothly)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation of
"PaulT has so much time to troll my posts that his behavior resembles an automated bot, or other troll unspecified."
Or... I'm a month into a mandated lockdown due to a pandemic that leaves me a lot of additional spare time that I would normally use elsewhere with sane people. I would certainly not normally be relying to email notifications about another of your insane rants on a sunny weekend if I had a choice to go outside.
The question is why you're here whining about me so much if you have so many superior ways to use your time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipulation
So, I am in a way, keeping your otherwise useless, stupid ass alive?
re: "I would certainly not normally be relying to email notifications about another of your insane rants on a sunny weekend if I had a choice to go outside."
Yeah. I inveigle you to break the rules--go outside, enjoy the sun. And, wear your (China supplied, NOT 3M mask) and keep the two-to-three meter rule, and carry a spray bottle of alcohol.
I never said I was superior to anyone, ever. But I am way ahead of the game, bro/sis/whoever you are, Sweaty-Sox Siri.
And, FYI: from this day forwards, I will refer to you as a preppper and boogaloo based on your own words, ideology, and actions. I will cite it frequently, and with relish.
prepper
[ˈprepər]
NOUN
NORTH AMERICAN
a person who believes a catastrophic disaster or emergency is likely to occur in the future and makes active preparations for it, typically by stockpiling food, ammunition, and other supplies.Hows your one week food supply holding out? Imagine if it got WORSE, bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Euphemisms and non-proximal manipula
"So, I am in a way, keeping your otherwise useless, stupid ass alive?"
No, you're providing free entertainment.
"Yeah. I inveigle you to break the rules--go outside, enjoy the sun."
Nah, I'll keep the lowkdown going for a few weeks as it's been very effective at bringing numbers down, and still enjoy the summer. This time of year it can rain a bit, and the forecast for this week isn't good, so I'll continue being productive at my job, and mock your impression of an insane person whenever I'm in need of a distraction. Then, after a few weeks I'll stop replying because I can return to a properly productive social life, whereas you will still be doing your pathetic act.
"I will refer to you as a preppper and boogaloo based on your own words"
I never said either of those word. Are you hallucinating again?
"Hows your one week food supply holding out? "
My 3 month supply is fine, thanks. Oh, yes, sane people are capable of stocking up on canned food, dry goods and bottled water just as much as you are. I have some problems if my freezer breaks and I lost the non-dried meat and vegetables I have in there, but I still have access to plenty even if things get worse (and at the moment, I have 5 supermarkets within 10 minute walking distance, all open and operating normally with full stocks).
Again, I'll be fine, and I don't really care about the welfare of the hallucination
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
The comments I mentioned this on were clearly about one specific comment each, clearly addressed to a specific user, and clearly meant as a response to that comment. It’s just good manners and basic common sense to use the “reply to this” function in such a case, and there is literally no good reason not to do so in such a case. Everyone will still see it either way, but using “reply to this” improves readability at no additional effort on your part.
If you want to address other comments, make multiple comments. It’s not like you weren’t already doing so, anyways.
You do realize that I’m bhull, right?
As for that comment, it is on a completely different subject, doesn’t involve cherrypicking evidence (lacking evidence means that we generally default to the null hypothesis), is entirely consistent with everything I said in this thread, and doesn’t really apply here at all, nor do you explain how it does.
No idea what that’s addressing, exactly.
I’m not 100% certain there’s a strong connection there, but whatever. I can’t say I disagree with any of that.
You presume without that none of us do anything to fight in “the real world” (and you expect us to assume without evidence or even examples that you do), but for the record, what do you expect us to do while quarantined anyways?
Again, this is completely irrelevant. Are you completely incapable of sticking to a single topic for just one comment?
Also derailing and an ad hominem argument, as well as being inaccurate. The least significant issue: my mom never owned a computer that I would have had access to. I also never played Yugioh on a computer (though I would have liked to have done so), and I don’t wank to manga (which isn’t capitalized). Basically, none of what you just said was accurate or relevant.
You complain about others being impolite here, but you have never shown anyone the same courtesy you expect of us.
Again, that has nothing to do with this. You’re also arguing from (predicted) adverse consequences, which is a logical fallacy. Also, should I bother pointing out that the dangers of all those things were known about long before anyone did anything about them and/or were highly unethical, making them terrible examples to compare against the 5G thing? Because you clearly don’t understand how the null hypothesis works.
Oh, and this is the wrong thread for that, buddy.
If it’s in a kitchen, the 5G mast probably wouldn’t actually work (at least the 5G part) for anyone but people in the house. (The wavelengths used for 5G aren’t good at penetrating things like walls.) It also wouldn’t work as a kitchen microwave because that’s not how either device works. And while I haven’t done the math yet, I’m fairly confident that a 5G mast does not use less electricity than a kitchen microwave. I think it’s safe to say you don’t understand 5G or microwaves (either the spectrum of radiation or the appliances) at all. Plus, I highly doubt that anyone be happy with having any large pole in their kitchen, regardless of its function or safety. (This is all setting aside whether a 5G mast would even fit in an average kitchen.)
Now, I’d be perfectly safe even if I was locked in the kitchen with the mast while it operates (assuming it fits and doesn’t just fall over), but the idea is ridiculous.
(Yes, I’m aware that you were probably just joking. However, I’m not sure you understood just how absurd the idea was.)
I suppose we can add “skepticism” to the list of things you talk about without actually understanding them. Skepticism can essentially be boiled down to “refusal to deviate from the null hypothesis without more evidence”. Assuming danger from something despite the overwhelming evidence that it’s safe and no evidence of danger is not skepticism; it’s the exact opposite. I think the work you want is “caution”, which is another thing entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
To air is human....Pure Spergold from a known troll and derailer:
Not here at TD its not. Doing so makes one a flag target of TDs in-house spergs. My job is not to make online bullying any easier than it is already.
Honestly, had I encountered people here with good manners, I would have returned the favor. That wasn't the case. So, really, easy on the Dear John letters to reason and etiquette.
What I encountered with you and about six other nameable Techdirt in-house trolls was anything BUT manners, targeting my posts for well over two years with the flag button, maligning, and smearing me personally, every time I cracked your pet oyster: Israeli IDF meddling in US activists lives and elections,the K4 mobs, the ADL and its related NGOs online trolling tactics, or real world crimes, like using redirection and forum trolling to assist in the creation of mass shooters offline in the real world.
SO, yeah, that said, I know that you are a representation of something calling itself "bhul" online.
Perhaps you are the sweaty socks, pizza-staining on momma's couch sperg persona version of Siriworking out some issues with machine learning and pseudo scepticism v. rational discourse v. actual human centered discourse.
That's all I know with any certainty. As you noted it still leans more towards the null hypothesis that you are a bot, because I cannot rule you in as an actual sentient human in my hypothesis, and most evidence points the timesucker/bot/sperg/other direction.
SO, exactly what logical fallacy is it that I need to look at in my manual for online discourse-the "how to argue disingenuously online for crisis PR and NGO causes" one?
You are consistently a aowrd bombing time sucker, and I don't have time today to engage with your sperg rulesets based in crisis PR manuals and military grade disinformation online tactical assaults against actual human speech which sometimes has a hidden, non-binary meaning; its own para-language and semantic cues.
You bots will never master that, to whit:
Number one, I ain't your buddy, and number two, I deliberately break such arbitrary rules because I know what and who is online and what they do with information. I am a systems disruption fan myself if you get my drift. And, I have a theory about you, too.
And this
Imagine if I tailored all my posts just for you, instead of the few others who have written to me laughing their asses off about you and a few others here, who I am dead accurate about in my commentary (that commentary directed at your online persona, which may or may not be a legend of some kind).
Time suckers are well documented in activist circles as exactly that: complete dead ends. In fact, NGOs, Big Pharma, the DoD and CIA, et alphabet all use them to suck time from real people like me, while gleaning the derivatives for data they can use later to sell intelligence products.
Seriously, I am just using you as an example, because you stepped on my square, sometime just after highbrow Wendy Cockblox called me a wanker of some kind or another (remember that?).
As for understanding how absurd this whole discussion has been since I first stepped in you here at TD, you might appreciate the humor in your own statements.
It depends on whether or not that pole was installed in the location where I recommended it be installed, just so that you get the full effect. In real people world, some find kitchens to be alluring places, where poles in their asses take on a different, more human context.
But what would you know about that anyways, Sweaty-Sox Siri? Sadly, AI Bots will never know actual intimacy.
Lastly
Yeah, yeah, I know. Professional Sceptics fill the ranks of every crisis PR firm that recommends we eat Tholidimide, STFU about depleted uranium, and manufactured terror; and let corporations install 5G masts up our asses.
Then, when we refuse, they all tell us that we are crazy, and to take yer meds, bhull
And so, as such, professional sceptics, and AI bots will never truly appreciate the in your face nature of human activism either, because real humans face the threat of a bullets in our faces whereas AI bots simply spawn, after being reset.
I don't know which is more sad, philosophically: bots that cannot feel, or humans that do. BUt caution has nothing to do with my approach, which is batting around .1000 so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
I do love the fact that you think this argues against the idea that you're a pathetic loser. with severe mental health issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
I think an ad hominem turd just fell out of my ass.
[looking just below this post]
There it is! Thanks for catching that before it got stuck to someone else's heel. Maybe theres a use for you after all.
[Document expired...]
...nice trick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
Ad hominem doesn't really count when there's no other substance in the original post to respond.to. Also... you do realise you replied to yourself here right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
Plop.
poof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
Again, do you realize that you are replying to yourself here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
I think he fell up his own arse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
Its very sexist of you to claim that your mother, or her ass belongs to me, like property.
She knows her ass isn't mine per se.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
First of all, it’s, “To err is human.” I wouldn’t point that out normally, but whatever. More importantly, what error are you referring to here?
Considering the fact that you have previously admitted to trollish behavior and motives and that you are always derailing threads by constantly bringing up unrelated and irrelevant topics, this seems like projection to me.
The fact that—as far as I can tell—everyone else who comments on TD—including regulars, trolls, and ACs—nearly always do so suggests otherwise. You’re the only one I know of who avoids using “reply to this” on multiple occasions or who has attempted to justify not using it where it would be appropriate to use it. I have no idea why you think it’s not good manners and common sense here, but it is.
First, most people who comment and/or flag comments here aren’t “in-house”, and I’m pretty sure that I’m one of the few—if not only—people with Asperger’s who comments regularly here. As such, there are no “in-house spergs” at TD who target people for flagging.
Second, based on past and present observations, the idea that using “reply to this” to post a reply to a comment rather than making a new thread creates any observable increase in how many people will flag the reply doesn’t appear to be accurate. In fact, your replies-not-posted-as-replies seem to be getting hidden at least as quickly as your replies-posted-as-replies in the same comment section, so if this was an experiment, it seems clear the hypothesis has been disproven. Perhaps you were under the impression that, when someone opts in to getting email alerts when new comments get posted, they only get alerted to new replies in that particular thread. That is not the case; we get an email alert any time anyone posts a new comment—whether it’s the start of a new thread or a reply to an existing comment, and whether the person posts as a registered user, an AC, or not signed in but with a pseudonym—on that article. Or perhaps you thing that most regular commenters here only read specific threads in the comments section after the first time. Again, this is untrue.
Third, flagging your comments to be hidden is not online bullying. That your comments frequently get flagged says more about you and your comments than any of us.
The first comment of yours that I could find wasn’t exactly polite, and I have tried to remain polite with you since I first encountered you. As such, I find your claim unlikely to be true at best. At the very least, I have yet to see any evidence of such.
Again, I’m not “in-house”, and as for targeting your posts, I didn’t even know you existed until a few months ago, so there clearly hasn’t been anything I’ve been doing to you for two years. I also haven’t maligned or smeared you personally. I may have said negative things about your claims, arguments, and tone, but I have actively avoided saying anything about you, personally. Heck, I originally focused on just asking for clarification, evidence, or decorum or pointing out flaws in your arguments, but then you began insulting me for no apparent reason. Since then, I’ve been less polite, but I’ve still avoided calling you names or saying bad things about you.
As for why your posts about that topic tend to get flagged or called out, there a number of good reasons for that.
Poor tone, name-calling, and bad manners without apparent, sufficient justification.
You have previously admitted to having trollish motives and have engaged in troll-like behavior.
You come off as sounding like as a conspiracy theorist.
Such posts have generally had little to no relation to the conversation at hand or the article on which they are posted, often derailing the discussion greatly.
You tell people they should kill themselves in an online forum open to the public.
You commonly appear to engage in projection and hypocrisy.
Any one of those reasons would be sufficient for many to flag your posts. There is no need to presume conspiracy, harassment, organization, or anything like that.
Again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the null hypothesis. The idea that the other entity is human (i.e. not a bot) is the null hypothesis in this situation. You would have to find evidence proving or at least suggesting that I’m not a human. (Also, having Asperger’s (or, as you call it, being a “sperg”) would mean that I am an actual sentient human, not a bot. Bots don’t have mental disorders.)
Seriously, stop trying to use ideas you clearly don’t understand.
I, for one, haven’t argued at all “for crisis PR and NGO causes”, or at least not as far as I can tell. At any rate, logical fallacies aren’t based on motives but on content and form. I’d need examples of specific arguments to point out any fallacies that they may or may not have used.
And yet you already are, in quite the lengthy comment at that.
Also, I haven’t read any “crisis PR manuals”, nor have I personally dealt with or been involved with “military[-]grade disinformation online tactical assaults” of any sort.
And yes, I’m well aware that “actual human speech […] sometimes has a hidden, non-binary meaning; its own para-language and semantic cues.” It is something I have had to grapple with my whole life. I’m not perfect at it, but I still have a pretty decent grasp on the concept. However, actual human speech can also be blunt and/or binary sometimes, and there are non-binary frameworks for logic that work well even for the situations you reference. Sure, it may be important to “read between the lines”, but it’s also important to “not read to much into things”.
Number one, you called me (or at least someone) “pal” earlier, so you know full well that this is just a rhetorical flourish, not a statement that you are actually a buddy of mine. I was just using something you did earlier in my response, just like I’m using the “Number one,” “Number two” thing that you just used. Seriously, you read way too much into things.
Number two, it’s not “arbitrary”. The forum was specifically meant to provide a space for people to discuss and provide feedback on the article and its subject, not to bring up whatever pet cause or theory you support or want to bring attention to, even if it has nothing to do with anything. In fact, that’s exactly what you keep accusing others of: derailing the discussion. Haven’t you also been accusing bots and NGOs of engaging in tactics intended to disrupt rational discourse, the same thing you just admitted to being a fan of doing yourself? See, this is what I mean when I say you admit to trollish motives and engage in troll-like behavior; and it’s also a great example of apparent projection/hypocrisy on your part.
Well, regarding relevance, you were attempting to address a particular comment in the comment section of a particular article, so relevance is kinda important. And if you aren’t directing your comment towards anyone here, then you shouldn’t be posting it here to begin with. As for your accuracy, I have pointed out a number of inaccuracies in your commentary, so no, you are not “dead accurate”.
Sounds like a pretty good description of what you are doing: sucking time and acting as a complete dead end. Also, again, I have no evidence supporting the idea that you are a real person that you don’t have supporting the idea that I am a real person. Same goes for being a bot.
No, I don’t remember that. I recall you mentioning on several occasions that she did that once, years ago, but I have never actually seen that alleged comment. My first encounter with you wasn’t “just after” the alleged incident, either; it was over a year later by your own telling of the facts. Also, why does it still bother you so much so long after the fact?
As for me “stepping on your square”, as I recall, what actually happened was that you butted in on an existing discussion that I was already involved in. (That discussion had already been derailed by an AC troll, who you claimed at the time was not you.)
So no, I do not recall that event as happening as you described. Even if it did, who cares?
I assumed you wouldn’t stoop to such lowbrow humor, especially since nothing in the original comment had any overtly sexual connotations or signals, nor any mention of posteriors or any other body parts. My mistake for assuming you had standards, I suppose. It also wouldn’t make sense given the mention of using it as a replacement for a kitchen microwave. Though, I imagine that a 5G pole would be too large to be used in such a manner.
At any rate, that was intended to be humorous in a way, so if you got some humor out of it, that’s great.
Setting aside the fact that I’m not an AI bot, given the current state of the internet, I wouldn’t be surprised if AI bots actually had a pretty good idea of that sort of “intimacy”, even if they never personally experience. (And yes, that was also a joke.)
First, I was explaining the definition of a skeptic. Profession and “crisis PR firms” have nothing to do with it.
Now, I don’t know about Tholidimide, whatever that is; most corporations want something to be done about depleted uranium (disposing of them in a “nuclear toilet” to keep people safe from being exposed to the radiation), but the government wouldn’t let them do so; manufactured terror does exist, but it’s not as prevelant as you claim (or at least you don’t provide sufficient reliable evidence that actually supports such a claim); and there is actually evidence supporting the idea that 5G poles are at least reasonably safe and no evidence or not-disproven, plausible hypotheses suggesting particular dangers from them (as long as something doesn’t go horribly wrong like it falling over or, I dunno, getting shoved up someone’s ass).
I don’t really support the abuse of language about mental health like that, but it is pretty common, so I don’t understand why you find that surprising. Ultimately, it’s a statement about their opinion of your claims, arguments, and annoying persistence. I’d say not to take it too personally, but it’d probably fall on deaf ears, and I can definitely understand why you would, so whatever.
I meant with regards to conclusions about safety, specifically, you are cautious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
Um, you are wrong, and TL;DR
What bhull242 and Stephen T. Stone, Toom1275, That One Guy, SDM, et al are doing is online mobbing, which isn't always bullying; but what you are doing is in fact online bullying i.e. following posts specifically to flag my comments(you, provably more than any other, because provably after you show up, my posts disappear), and this has repeated as a pattern for well over one year (and in this thread).
And again you yourself now acknowledge that you are specifically getting push notices of my comments. As you are well aware that only I respond long after the articles popularity wanes.
Then, when you specifically show up, that's when the flagging really begins, as I have noted over the last week that no posts were flagged off UNTIL you showed up. At one point in my notes, I wrote "its surprising that the troll bhull has not yet come to this thread yet."
You appeared shortly thereafter. So, yeah, TL:DR. I can't get past your lies, nor will I further engage with your book-bombs, mis-statements, and mis-characterizations.
"perhaps you thing[sic] that most regular commenters here only read specific threads in the comments section after the first time. Again, this is untrue. Third, flagging your comments to be hidden is not online bullying"
It IS what online bullying is, and secondly, participating in and crisis perception management online by definition. You are demonstrably wrong on all counts, and I will submit my paper as such (whether you are a useful idiot, or an actual NGO affiliate isn't relevant for my purpose).
Try harder not to infer my intents or thought processes. I try to keep it organic here, and have noted that your responses are targeted.
Most notably, Cushing recently covered a spat between an Israeli spy outfit suing Facebook, and again, I note that it is my opinion about content that is being flagged, regardless of tone, tenor, or pitch. Most significantly, you and other mockingbirds are offended by my criticism of IDF trained spies, villains, and Svengali's working in Silicon Valley
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200407/13114244256/nso-fires-back-facebook-says-not-respo nsible-malware-deployments-foreign-governments.shtml#c669
While its just one issue, bhull, this censorship and bias in online communities who refuse to acknowledge the Israeli spy networks in and outside of tech, there are other issues, such as how the Mockingbird effect works online, how easily useful idiots arise, and how this relates to actual censorship offline, and cops murdering citizens after policing speech online.
Then, too, Masnick has just published how Jerry Falwell Jr. is following in his fathers christian Zionist footsteps and attempting to have reporters arrested for speech. You are welcome to eat the bait over there, too, but you have already proven many things relevant to my hypothesis.
It IS all related, bhull, and you, and the other named trolls are part of the problem of WHY it exists. None of you are genuinely commenting about ANYTHING in the articles, and many of you are ACTIVELY coordinating harassment, based in speech prohibitions.
Best of all, in well over a year, not one of you has engaged with any form of relevant evidence of anything regardless of format. That is the most significant proof of trolling that I have gleaned here.
So, yes, a level of organization exists; coercive threats have been made(most notably by Stone)you have acknowledged your part in it; the timing and certainty of these issues being suppressed leans towards null; and each thread that has been attacked and word policed has indeed carried similarly policed content and themes.
That's more than enough evidence, not least of which is your specific attempts, spread out just over one year, to actively coerce, induce, and enforce your version of speech, which I routinely noted, lacks humor. This is the very essence of bullying.
stoop to such lowbrow humor
TDs threads are full of humor. Many commenters make jokes, and sometimes, offensive ones. I don't police that, my colleagues don't police that.
And, you do, Stephen T. Stone does, SDM (aka Claus) does, and a few other named parties who have routinely and specifically targeted my speech, while leaving all kinds of racist, sexist, etceterist speech go un-policed in the same threads.
That's evidence enough for a simple paper on the linguistics of online bullying and the formation of online mobs relative to disproving certain commentaries on emergent norms, coercive dialectic spaces, and internet trends towards mob rule, and I am certain my peers will agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
"What bhull242 and Stephen T. Stone, Toom1275, That One Guy, SDM, et al are doing is online mobbing,"
No, what we're doing is responding to the comments made by someone.
"following posts specifically to flag my comments"
First, I follow every thread I post on, no matter who has commented there before I do. Secondly, I almost never flag comments unless they are specifically spam. Now, if the rest of the community decide to flag you, that's the community telling you something. As the saying goes, if you run into assholes all day, perhaps you are the asshole.
"Best of all, in well over a year, not one of you has engaged with any form of relevant evidence of anything regardless of format"
Because you fail to offer something that can be responded to with facts. If you're not ranting,, spreading racist/sexist/etc speech and so on, you're directly attacing people on a personal level.
"Then, too, Masnick has just published how Jerry Falwell Jr. is following in his fathers christian Zionist footsteps and attempting to have reporters arrested for speech."
Yet, everybody agreed he was a dickhead for doing so before you decided to inject anti-semitism into the mix. Even when you agree with the community, you still act like the kind of asshole people want to flag.
"That's evidence enough for a simple paper on the linguistics of online bullying"
No, not least because you choose to come here even after being told your brand of insanity is not welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
PaulT is a liar, injecting his religion into discussions.
Are Palestinians semitic people, PaulT? How about Bobby Fischer for that matter, or Stanley Cohen, Esq., Lenny Bruce-- or Einstein? ROGS is a fan of all of them (and a friend of one of them).
Ánd why are you dragging that Jerry Falwell thread over here?
Take yer meds, PaulT!!
And: I almost never flag comments
Sure, Proof or GTFO!
My comments always disappear after the three ponies of the TD Apocalypse show up: you, Stephen T. Stone, and bhull242. Its been demonstrated repeatedly over several years, with nearly 100% accuracy.
SO, since you injected your religious bias into it:
Criticism of rabid christian zionists is not anti-anything, other than what it is on the surface of the statement. And the fact that these are allied with the worst of the worst of all Jewish culture-those who have adopted Hitler's concepts and practices--does not indicate anything about semites as a group (in fact, there are many groups of semites).
So, I conclude PaulT gets paid by the product placement every time he uses the word anti-semitism"and he gets double if he can trick the person he is accusing of it into using that word themselves.
It was PaulT who inject(ed) anti-semitism into the mix, not ROGS. In fact, thats what he does, every time Israel kills an activist, or gets caught spying on peace protesters.
ROGS merely criticized 'yet another Israeli spook operated firm for spying fellow countrymen, and the world, generally; and that, often with lethal consequences.
That's not antishemitisisticlismatism, that's rational, valid, necessary, and quite acceptable democratic criticism. Unless of course, you describe Israel as a democracy, in which case all bets for non-binary fallacy oriented argument or discussion are off.
Your rants are not logical, they do not follow from facts, and neither do your criticisms. We know what your cause is, and that you derive profit from it. So, stick with those facts, PaulT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
"PaulT is a liar, injecting his religion into discussions.
Very strange since I have none.
"Sure, Proof or GTFO!"
Logs could be provided I'm sure, alas they are not mine to give.
"My comments always disappear after the three ponies of the TD Apocalypse show up: you, Stephen T. Stone, and bhull242."
We're the ones who reply to you. There will be many others who do not comment yet report you for the troll you are.
"Your rants are not logical"
I generally type 2 or 3 sentences in direct response to a rambling idiot who types paragraph after paragraph of nonsense, often with no central point other than to directly attack the last person who responded to him, as evidenced above. The rest of the community will judge which qualifies as a rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
I mean, weren’t you the one who started talking about Jews and Jerry Falwell here?
I have noticed that many of your comments disappear before any of the three of us reply to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
I would add that, unlike on many websites I have visited, comments do not disappear at all. They are still there, just behind a polite warning to people as to the nature of the comment. I've never seen any evidence that the warning is inaccurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
Since you apparently can’t be bothered to read longer comments (even though many of yours are just as long if not longer, which is often why many of my posts are so long), I’ll just briefly address a few points.
Actually, I get push notices of everyone’s comments. Stop making this all about you.
Again, I have observed otherwise. Posts would be hidden before I began participating. I’m sorry that you don’t believe me, but it’s the truth. I don’t really think either of us can prove definitively one way or the other, and at any rate, I don’t have that kind of power (nor can I think of a way I could).
I had other things on my mind, like work, so I took a short break from Techdirt. When I came back, I did what I always do and go back through the articles I missed, including the comments. This has happened on several past occasions, so there’s nothing strange about that. If you had bothered to check, you’d see that I also posted comments in threads that didn’t involve you around the same time and on other articles.
I haven’t really been policing that sort of speech—at least not here—and that wasn’t really my point, anyway. It doesn’t matter anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
"Actually, I get push notices of everyone’s comments. Stop making this all about you."
We have to stress this. If you tick the notification box, you get a message any time someone posts on the same thread, be it a current reply to you personally or a random spam post made to an article you last posted in 6 years ago.
By framing this as a personal stalking, our fool above is only revealing he has no idea how this notification system works, which suggests he isn't using it. Which only begs the question - what kind of actual stalkery alternative is he using to track responses to his messages if not the one provided by the site itself?
"Again, I have observed otherwise. Posts would be hidden before I began participating."
...and as I've already stated I very rarely report posts myself unless they are outright spam. So, the logical conclusion - his nonsense is resulting in many more people than the ones he's trying to target in being alerted and thus annoyed by his posts via the above system, and the other people are trying to tell him to STFU.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Forum conventions aren't my bag
To air is human....Pure Spergold from a known troll and derailer:
Not here at TD its not. Doing so makes one a flag target of TDs in-house spergs. My job is not to make online bullying any easier than it is already.
Honestly, had I encountered people here with good manners, I would have returned the favor. That wasn't the case. So, really, easy on the Dear John letters to reason and etiquette.
What I encountered with you and about six other nameable Techdirt in-house trolls was anything BUT manners, targeting my posts for well over two years with the flag button, maligning, and smearing me personally, every time I cracked your pet oyster: Israeli IDF meddling in US activists lives and elections,the K4 mobs, the ADL and its related NGOs online trolling tactics, or real world crimes, like using redirection and forum trolling to assist in the creation of mass shooters offline in the real world.
SO, yeah, that said, I know that you are a representation of something calling itself "bhul" online.
Perhaps you are the sweaty socks, pizza-staining on momma's couch sperg persona version of Siriworking out some issues with machine learning and pseudo scepticism v. rational discourse v. actual human centered discourse.
That's all I know with any certainty. As you noted it still leans more towards the null hypothesis that you are a bot, because I cannot rule you in as an actual sentient human in my hypothesis, and most evidence points the timesucker/bot/sperg/other direction.
SO, exactly what logical fallacy is it that I need to look at in my manual for online discourse-the "how to argue disingenuously online for crisis PR and NGO causes" one?
You are consistently a aowrd bombing time sucker, and I don't have time today to engage with your sperg rulesets based in crisis PR manuals and military grade disinformation online tactical assaults against actual human speech which sometimes has a hidden, non-binary meaning; its own para-language and semantic cues.
You bots will never master that, to whit:
Number one, I ain't your buddy, and number two, I deliberately break such arbitrary rules because I know what and who is online and what they do with information. I am a systems disruption fan myself if you get my drift. And, I have a theory about you, too.
And this
Imagine if I tailored all my posts just for you, instead of the few others who have written to me laughing their asses off about you and a few others here, who I am dead accurate about in my commentary (that commentary directed at your online persona, which may or may not be a legend of some kind).
Time suckers are well documented in activist circles as exactly that: complete dead ends. In fact, NGOs, Big Pharma, the DoD and CIA, et alphabet all use them to suck time from real people like me, while gleaning the derivatives for data they can use later to sell intelligence products.
Seriously, I am just using you as an example, because you stepped on my square, sometime just after highbrow Wendy Cockblox called me a wanker of some kind or another (remember that?).
As for understanding how absurd this whole discussion has been since I first stepped in you here at TD, you might appreciate the humor in your own statements.
It depends on whether or not that pole was installed in the location where I recommended it be installed, just so that you get the full effect. In real people world, some find kitchens to be alluring places, where poles in their asses take on a different, more human context.
But what would you know about that anyways, Sweaty-Sox Siri? Sadly, AI Bots will never know actual intimacy.
Lastly
Yeah, yeah, I know. Professional Sceptics fill the ranks of every crisis PR firm that recommends we eat Tholidimide, STFU about depleted uranium, and manufactured terror; and let corporations install 5G masts up our asses.
Then, when we refuse, they all tell us that we are crazy, and to take yer meds, bhull
And so, as such, professional sceptics, and AI bots will never truly appreciate the in your face nature of human activism either, because real humans face the threat of a bullets in our faces whereas AI bots simply spawn, after being reset.
I don't know which is more sad, philosophically: bots that cannot feel, or humans that do. BUt caution has nothing to do with my approach, which is batting around .1000 so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: in-house TD trolls v the actual "people"
What the actual fuck is "avoh" anyways? I am putting that out to the group. Can anyone find me a [citation] on the meaning of avoh?
And for those looking over my shoulder right now, note this:
You are responding to specific people in your posts
Most of you are aware of my thesis on that one, as well as the history of his conduct here, so I won't elaborate.
Now: only the vain, the conceited and the fraudster care what they look like. I could care less how I appear to anyone, though its been said I am even quite appealing on stage and in film.
Real humans know my story, where to find it, and how to cite it. TD forum dialectic creeps, spergs and K4 styled bullies, and word rapists, not so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: in-house TD trolls v the actual "people"
"What the actual fuck is "avoh" anyways? "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error
Although you still can't find the reply to link people ask you to use to keep things coherent, it seems.
"Real humans know my story"
Yes, yes do. I just don't think it's the story you like to pretend it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: in-house TD trolls v the actual "people"
Thanks for that link. But honestly PaulT, you have proven yourself to be an absolute viper.
So, re:"you still can't find the reply to link people ask you to use to keep things coherent"
PaulT, I have addressed that reply to link elsewhere. Here's the bullet list:
TDs comment system does not always function correctly
NSA/other offshore collection can interfere with posts
on several occasions, which I can count on two hands, I have hit the wrong reply to in error
And so, the proof that you constantly ask for, well, I would have to link to several court cases, one of which was followed by several other litigants, wherein I put a named security company out of business, and encouraged the wrath of a few police departments from local to state to federal simply by forcing due process issues as a citizen.
And of course, I will not trust a double headed snake like you with anything that reveals my identity. No doubt your doubt about my story is expressed because you are rather a dull and useless, mean spirited person.
As I recall, you recently described yourself in another thread as PaulT, the "guy in the office who looks like an anti-social, but in reality is waaaaay better than all of his brown-nosing co-workers," or something similar.
No one like you believed Darren Seals either, and look at how many deaths followed or co-occured with his:
https://thecorrespondent.com/5349/meet-darren-seals-then-tell-me-black-death-is-not-a-business/ 1512965275833-fe73c5b1
Paul, my job is not to convince you of anything, nor do I want your personal stamp of approval on my story. In fact, if you DID validate my narrative, others would suddenly see that narrative as suspect, because, you.
Its so bizarre, that in your addled head, you think only you, and about five other trolls here are TDs only readers; or that I give a shit about your opinion.
I will damn well talk around you if and when I want to, here and elsewhere,
PaulT a mean spirited anti-social,non-American guy who lives in Spain.
And again, fuck you and your interpretation and interference in our laws and undue processes-you don't live in the US and can never fully know how bad it is there, because of this police/security bullshit and extra-judicial targeting and homicide.
Why do you useful idiots constantly feel the need to prove yourselves as exactly that?
Oh, yeah: capos, jailhouse rats, and cock-blocking gatekeepers are self appointed, most of the time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: in-house TD trolls v the actual "people"
I think what was intended was this:
That is, he was interrupting the word “avoid” to say “oh”. The lack of space or punctuation in between was likely meant to suggest that the transition was abrupt and instantaneous, with no pause or trailing ending.
If this is a reference to your unsubstantiated theories and claims of bots on this site, then just substitute “entities”, “accounts”, “users”, “comments”, “posts”, or something along those lines for “people”. Whether or not there is a particular, actual, live human being behind the online persona is immaterial to this particular point. None of what you just said in that quote actually refutes the point being made here. It improves readability for everyone to use “reply to this” when you are clearly addressing a particular comment and/or user, so everyone has an easier time following the discussion of you do.
I don’t think anyone mentioned physical appearances, but I think many people would argue that what you say here makes you seem vain, conceited, and/or a fraudster, and that makes it less likely that anyone will actually take what you say seriously or believe it to be truthful or accurate.
Still waiting for that explanation of “K4”.
Also, you have yet to provide any information regarding where you or your story can be found, and there is no evidence available to us to support your claims that anyone, real human or not, can find you. As such, I have no reason to believe this claim at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... As opposed to ROGS, the outhouse troll...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: vote "funny"
That's actually very funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirt flag brigade, PaulT, Stephen T. Stone, That One Guy, bhull242m Toom1275
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Your point being? Your attacks on a community are being responded to by regular members of that community?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sentient humans v binary discourse online
Some might have noticed the binary discourse problem online, where alleged humans aka a non-random forum comment pool (for our purposes here) have adopted the binary fallacy and also synthetic speech conventions similar to I/O binary inputs.
Then, this non-organic, frozen dialectic, as well as the professional sceptic problem (aka the unprovable negative) is where allegedly tech-minded people who think in I/O terms are assisting in de-democratizing societies, by co-opting the organic discourse of the public at large.
I will discuss that in my paper.
KW: Techdirt, flag brigade bhull242, PaulT, Stephen T. Stone is a prepper
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sentient humans v binary discourse online
Again, you do realise that we now you're talking to yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: shout out to the binary fallacy, y'all!
A community is as much an organic creation as it is a dualistic, inorganic creation, manipulated from outside its perimeter by hostile, antagonistic forces.
Hence, flag brigades are the ones doing the attacking, here, as those exact hostile forces wage dialectic war within that same community, largely due to that communities adoption of the lingua franca of binary fallacy rather than a discursive approach which is much more revealing of both facts, and opinions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: shout out to the binary fallacy, y'all!
So your response to being reminded that the community you're attacking don't want you here is to dismiss the entire notion of the community?
This is one of the reasons I eep engaging you when I see you spew your idiocy across these threads - the lengths you will go to to deny reality is always entertaining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The white elephant in the room: binary fallacy
Are you going to address the article about the son of the Father of christian zionism at some point Paullie, or...?
I mean-anything to say about Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority being the The Godfather of christian zionism, and its accompanying lunacy, to whit, the case at hadn? Anything at all to say about anything related to the article?
Yeah-I didn't think so.
I have named those who attacked me here first, and we have been over you and bhull's less than honest assessment of the facts of your online bullying here, so, yeah, there's that. Its how this forum and a few others work: the binary fallacy, repeated often and loudly by the bullies as they bully.
Look, you are welcome to ignore the linkage between zionists and zionazis to most of the real terrorism and manufactured terrorism and online/offline battles for speech in our modern world, but there it is AGAIN, as we see it in this story, and so many other TD stories.
Again, up there you ONCE AGAIN deliberately and falsely equated criticism of rabid zionism with anti-semitism. These are not even close neighbors in the dialectic.
And once again, every time you and others like you force that discussion via binary dialogues (which is what you and they are doing with you as a running smear in and of yourself, its a win for the rabid misanthropes that invented that word, and those like yourself who profit by its use.
These are not the same thing, and any decent or sane person can see that. You are neither sane, nor decent.
SO, sure, have the word police come and harass me ok? Maybe hack my email accounts, or have the local boys stalk me, and write me a ticket, or send a squad car by my door as I hit send on an email.
How about you sicc a few NGOs on me, have them and their flying monkeys attack me online (case in point, lol) and off for mentioning that Jerry Falwell was the Father of christian zionism and all of the truly insane, bad shit that goes along with that.
You do realize what side of the speech argument that puts you on, right?
All of this would be funny if it hadn't already happened. So, yeah, fuck you and anyone in such a purported community who argues so deceptively. As of now, that purported community of binary rhetoriticians here appears to be exactly the several that I have named. Others have written to me to say thank you for taking you and others to task.
And anyone who has studied these issues at any length quickly discovers who their harassers are, and it ain't me. TD is after all welcome to send me a cease and desist order, or otherwise signify that I am unwelcome here, They know where to find me.
You on the other hand are not. Remember: its not your living room and all that being hypothetically forced to host content they disapprove of by me, the huge corporate mouthpiece disguised as ONE individual, pal, so put a sock in it.
Like I said, people like you virtually guarantee the coming dark ages of speech. Its how religion and the Jerry Falwells of the world succeed in every discussion, and in every generation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The white elephant in the room: binary fallacy
"Are you going to address the article about the son of the Father of christian zionism at some point Paullie, or...?"
I have. I just didn't bring anti-semitism into an argument that operates quite well without it.
But, if you do wonder why you're treated as an insane racist who has no idea why he has no place in this community, just have a glance at the rest of your comment. You directed this at a community that agrees that Falwell is a piece of shit, yet you managed to alienate yourself from any sane human being who reads your words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The white elephant in the room: binary fallacy
Agreed: Falwell is a piece of shit
That's the low road, bro. Easy to take, harder to explicate to sentient humans.
The high road is western religion itself is a piece of shit but you never seem to get to that road, because you are ALWAYS dog whistling at Jews, as if your concept of Jews will save you. See the problem yet? It is YOU.
Do you have any original thoughts on these issues; any new data?
Right. I didn't think so, Pope PaulT, the Redundant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The white elephant in the room: binary fallacy
"The high road is western religion itself is a piece of shit"
Why are you singling Western religion out? There's bad middle eastern, pagan, eastern and other religious beliefs too.
"Do you have any original thoughts on these issues; any new data?"
Yes, but they're way out of the scope of the Jerry Falwell and his family are pieces of shit" conversation that everyone else was having, and you'd just use it to shoehorn immature rants about Jews into the conversation either way. I'll save my thoughts for a mature adult conversation with non-bigots, thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The white elephant in the room: binary fallacy
Well. you asked, so...
Western religion posits that dead people are your G-d, profits, and overseers.
Eastern religions like Zen and Tao( and I am not a fan of Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Sufism. Gaianism, Celtic Druidism, per se) posits that you are possibly the Buddha, and if not, at least on the path.
That path can, will, and does lead you to truth as opposed to a never ending theological (anti-logical)argument with rabbinical sources, or churches who have never read ( or believed) their own self conflicting so-called scriptures.
But to be clear: I have no religion. I have no chains. Its a great and endless freedom to do good works after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The white elephant in the room: binary falla
"Its a great and endless freedom to do good works after that."
Yet, you opt to use that freedom to act like a lunatic and insult people instead of doing good, and usually doing so based on a fictional strawman rather than the real version of the people you attack. Rather sad, really.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The white elephant in the room: binary f
You started it, around a year ago,re: act like a lunatic and insult people
Would you care to name what you claim as my strawman? I dare you. I will go toe to toe with ANYONE on that topic.
And, I won't let evildooers off the hook, just cuz, gud for tribal sectarians, known as
[THE NAME OF THESE EVIL DOOERS HAS BEEN SELF-CENSORED]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The white elephant in the room: bina
"Would you care to name what you claim as my strawman? "
The version of me that you attack because you cannot address anything I actually say.,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The white elephant in the room: bina
That white elephant.
The gift no one wants, and it keeps giving itself.
Weird, that one.
Worse than a red headed stepchild(Bassam) by leaps and bounds.
We know at least that the redhead is the by-product of bastardization, but WOW! Those bitches...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The white elephant in the room: binary falla
Basically, Buddhism (of which Zen is a particular sect) is pretty much the only religion that doesn’t worship at least one deity of some sort in some way. Taoism (and Confucianism, for that matter) is not a religion but a philosophy. Furthermore, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Sikhism, Hinduism, and Shintoism—among others—are all theistic religions (meaning they worship a deity(ies), or at least believe in their existence) that are prevalent and/or originate from the East and aren’t considered “Western religions”. Also, Celtic Druidism is a western religion, and it technically doesn’t believe in a deity or dead people, either, so it’s odd that you mention it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PaulT and Psychiatric Meta-Narrative, Techdirt
insane racist = criticizing Israel spy companies and IDF operated gadget manufacturers?
insane racist = noting that Jerry Falwell Sr, is the Godfather of christian zionism, and all the evil they instigate and perpetuate?
insane racist= noting that these are one and the same form of sociopathy?
Got it. Strange (kind of fanatical) definition, that. Funny how none of my dictionaries define racism that way.
No, you have not addressed that article, which you quote here AGAIN to derail this thread. And if you have, please point me to it, because YOU CANNOT. Its all ad-hom attacks against me, in your shadow boxer unreality.
You are a fucking racist loon yourself for taking that cowardly smear campaign option. But you are cited as such, so go fuck yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]