Wait, so if I conspire to commit a crime without wearing a mask or a white cap (assuming I don’t actually go on to commit the crime in question) or wear a mask or a white cap while not conspiring to commit a crime, that’s all fine, but put the two together, and now it’s against the law?
True. I forgot to mention that. Even a relatively thin female dwarf would have to drink fairly heavily for extended periods of time to reach a level of addiction where they’d go through significant withdrawal if they stop cold turkey, and such a woman would be particularly susceptible to death by alcohol poisoning anyways, making it rather unlikely that she would ever reach the severe withdrawal.
And while I haven’t looked it up, I think I vaguely recall that the more immediate adverse effects of alcohol consumption (drunkenness, blackouts, passing out, blurred vision, altered perception, loss of balance/muscle control, death from alcohol poisoning, hangovers, etc.) scale more with factors like gender or body weight than severity of withdrawal.
Still, I should have mentioned that. Thanks for pointing that out!
I seem to recall that, even at that time, Trump was (or was at least perceived to be) rich, and he was also quite famous. That would mean that he fits the conditions laid out in the first part. I also remember him saying in that same conversation that at one point he—without receiving prior consent from her by his own telling of it—“moved in on [a married woman] like a bitch.” I don’t suppose you have an explanation for that one.
They never flipped. The Democrats still support all those same things. Look at which side is pushing for segregation. It certainly isn't the right. The only difference is that they're pushing against White People.
Where exactly has the Democratic Party in recent times supported any segregationist positions? And what party or politicians have been supporting slavery (something else you mentioned earlier)? And in case you hadn’t noticed, the Civil Rights Act (along with later, similar laws and regulations) was passed and signed by Democrats.
You haven't been paying attention to the Left much since Obama got elected, have you?
Aside from the fact that voter suppression wasn’t as much of an issue until around that time, so less focus from Democrats was put on that issue around that time, I haven’t noticed much significant difference in the Democratic Party since Obama got elected, and I was actually paying a lot of attention to politics from a few year before then to now, especially around that specific time period. I have noticed some changes to the Republican Party, however.
They're so far to the left that they consider Obama right wing, Bernie Sanders moderate and Donald Trump (who is to the left of Mitt Romney) far right.
Most other western countries would agree with that. By today’s standards, people like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower—all very much Republicans during their lifetimes—would be considered leftists in America today. Heck, even Reagan and Nixon—who were staunch Republicans—had some more liberal views and/or policies than many more moderate Republicans today.
You’re problem is that you’re on a platform drifting to the right over time, so to you, it looks like everything not in that platform is going further to the left.
Unless there is at least strong evidence of a direct connection between either the people running Wikipedia or the alleged “Wikipedia trolls” and either the people running TechDirt, any of the people or entities mentioned in the article, or the alleged “named trolls”, I’m afraid Aaron Swartz’s “excellent analysis” is completely irrelevant here. If you feel the need to have this discussion, either start your own subreddit or other forum on that topic or put it on one of the articles that don’t really have a particular topic, like the “This Week in Techdirt History” posts or the ads. Heck, do so on the posts that point out the funniest/most insightful comments of the week. At least then, relevance won’t be an issue.
No one has stated an opinion on the allegations regarding “Wikipedia’s [supposed] fake editing system” because it has nothing to do with us, the discussion prior to you bringing it up, this article, its author, this site, or the people running this site. It proves nothing related to any of that, either, even if the allegations are true. It’s a completely irrelevant non sequitur that’s not worth addressing here.
My initial reaction to the accusation is skepticism, but I’m not going to bother going any deeper here because (1) I don’t really care that much and (2) this isn’t the place to have that discussion.
Re: Re: online bullying, techdirt, flag brigade, that one guy
Some of those to whom you refer as “un-flaggable in-house trolls” have indeed been flagged, and some have even had at least one post of theirs hidden or get caught in the spam filter, so you’re completely wrong on that.
As for Aaron Swartz, in addition to being quite skeptical about that whole thing, that is not evidence that there are any in-house trolls here, or that any of the specific individuals you single out are such.
PaulT and That One Guy didn’t comment on anything substantive because there wasn’t much substance to your comment to address to begin with.
Again, please use “reply to this” when addressing a particular comment so we can easily refer back to the comment you’re quoting from.
There are a few other issues with what you said, but I want to specifically point out a couple, first with these quotes about Stephen T. Stone:
Tired, religious bullshit
You are pretty Catholic, but too stupid to know it.
Now, it’s been well established that Stone is an atheist; he does not believe in the existence of any supernatural entity, supernatural phenomena, or life after death. As such, he is clearly not religious, and he is certainly not Catholic. The fact that you think someone can be Catholic and somehow not know it shows how little you know about Catholicism.
The other thing I wanted to address is that, as far as the law is concerned, at least, an accusation isn’t false if it hasn’t been adjudicated to be false or the person in question admits to it (or is clearly uncredible).
As far as credibility of these particular claims is concerned, we have multiple women who never met or knew about the other women who have independently made very similar accusations that are entirely consistent with each other and with what’s known to be true. We also have evidence that measures were taken well before these accusation were made public that suggest that he engaged in behavior consistent with the allegations (like closing the mall). As I recall, some also had corroborating witnesses. That all sounds pretty credible to me.
To be clear, neither Stone nor myself are saying that they are absolutely beyond a doubt true, nor are we saying that Roy Moore should be jailed or legally punished over these allegation until and unless they are proven in a court of law and he is convicted. However, that’s very different from social consequences, doesn’t make the allegations false, and is entirely irrelevant to whether or not anything mentioned is libel or not.
Technically, much like how “bitch” was first used to mean “female dog” (and still is sometimes), “nigger” originally referred to a kind of parasitic mite that would burrow into human skin. Still doesn’t change the offensiveness of the term now, although I will say that “bitch” does have some less female-centric meanings, namely when used as a verb. It’s still generally considered offensive, though.
On the post: New York's Governor Hands Down A Mask Mandate While The State's Anti-Mask Law Remains On The Books
Re:
Wait, so if I conspire to commit a crime without wearing a mask or a white cap (assuming I don’t actually go on to commit the crime in question) or wear a mask or a white cap while not conspiring to commit a crime, that’s all fine, but put the two together, and now it’s against the law?
On the post: Disgraced Former NASCAR Boss, Brian France, Uses SLAPP Suit To Silence Parody Twitter Account
Re:
The above comment is a joke, and I misspelled “thought” intentionally. I am well aware they meant ”though Connecticut”.
On the post: Disgraced Former NASCAR Boss, Brian France, Uses SLAPP Suit To Silence Parody Twitter Account
Wait, so it’s unusual for tough states to have anti-SLAPP laws? I always tought it was a show of toughness to protect free speech.
On the post: Disgraced Former NASCAR Boss, Brian France, Uses SLAPP Suit To Silence Parody Twitter Account
Re: Re:
I think it sort of is, just not nearly as well as the Streisand Effect.
On the post: The Geopolitical Streisand Effect: The More China And The WHO Try To Silence Taiwan, The More Attention Its Success Fighting COVID-19 Gets
Re: This entire thing is not a WHO specific issue
It worked out just fine for the WTO.
On the post: The Geopolitical Streisand Effect: The More China And The WHO Try To Silence Taiwan, The More Attention Its Success Fighting COVID-19 Gets
Re: Re: Re: Taiwan and the UN
Personally, I consider it all irrelevant to the state of each now. There isn’t one China, there are two.
On the post: Laura Loomer Files Defamation Suit Against Facebook For Calling Her 'Dangerous' When Booting Her From The Platform
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Are you serious?
Evidence?
On the post: Facebook Tells Court Laura Loomer's Defamation Allegations All Target Protected Opinions
Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t California have a strong anti-SLAPP law that would apply here?
On the post: Senator Tillis Angry At The Internet Archive For Helping People Read During A Pandemic; Archive Explains Why That's Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True. I forgot to mention that. Even a relatively thin female dwarf would have to drink fairly heavily for extended periods of time to reach a level of addiction where they’d go through significant withdrawal if they stop cold turkey, and such a woman would be particularly susceptible to death by alcohol poisoning anyways, making it rather unlikely that she would ever reach the severe withdrawal.
And while I haven’t looked it up, I think I vaguely recall that the more immediate adverse effects of alcohol consumption (drunkenness, blackouts, passing out, blurred vision, altered perception, loss of balance/muscle control, death from alcohol poisoning, hangovers, etc.) scale more with factors like gender or body weight than severity of withdrawal.
Still, I should have mentioned that. Thanks for pointing that out!
On the post: Senator Tillis Angry At The Internet Archive For Helping People Read During A Pandemic; Archive Explains Why That's Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, I forgot about what happened during the Prohibition. Yeah, that probably wouldn’t end well.
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Losing Meaning
I seem to recall that, even at that time, Trump was (or was at least perceived to be) rich, and he was also quite famous. That would mean that he fits the conditions laid out in the first part. I also remember him saying in that same conversation that at one point he—without receiving prior consent from her by his own telling of it—“moved in on [a married woman] like a bitch.” I don’t suppose you have an explanation for that one.
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please explain what Democrats have cheated to win.
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Re:
Where exactly has the Democratic Party in recent times supported any segregationist positions? And what party or politicians have been supporting slavery (something else you mentioned earlier)? And in case you hadn’t noticed, the Civil Rights Act (along with later, similar laws and regulations) was passed and signed by Democrats.
Aside from the fact that voter suppression wasn’t as much of an issue until around that time, so less focus from Democrats was put on that issue around that time, I haven’t noticed much significant difference in the Democratic Party since Obama got elected, and I was actually paying a lot of attention to politics from a few year before then to now, especially around that specific time period. I have noticed some changes to the Republican Party, however.
Most other western countries would agree with that. By today’s standards, people like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower—all very much Republicans during their lifetimes—would be considered leftists in America today. Heck, even Reagan and Nixon—who were staunch Republicans—had some more liberal views and/or policies than many more moderate Republicans today.
You’re problem is that you’re on a platform drifting to the right over time, so to you, it looks like everything not in that platform is going further to the left.
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re:
Unless there is at least strong evidence of a direct connection between either the people running Wikipedia or the alleged “Wikipedia trolls” and either the people running TechDirt, any of the people or entities mentioned in the article, or the alleged “named trolls”, I’m afraid Aaron Swartz’s “excellent analysis” is completely irrelevant here. If you feel the need to have this discussion, either start your own subreddit or other forum on that topic or put it on one of the articles that don’t really have a particular topic, like the “This Week in Techdirt History” posts or the ads. Heck, do so on the posts that point out the funniest/most insightful comments of the week. At least then, relevance won’t be an issue.
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: online bullying, techdirt, flag brigade
No one has stated an opinion on the allegations regarding “Wikipedia’s [supposed] fake editing system” because it has nothing to do with us, the discussion prior to you bringing it up, this article, its author, this site, or the people running this site. It proves nothing related to any of that, either, even if the allegations are true. It’s a completely irrelevant non sequitur that’s not worth addressing here.
My initial reaction to the accusation is skepticism, but I’m not going to bother going any deeper here because (1) I don’t really care that much and (2) this isn’t the place to have that discussion.
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: online bullying, techdirt, flag brigade, that one guy
Some of those to whom you refer as “un-flaggable in-house trolls” have indeed been flagged, and some have even had at least one post of theirs hidden or get caught in the spam filter, so you’re completely wrong on that.
As for Aaron Swartz, in addition to being quite skeptical about that whole thing, that is not evidence that there are any in-house trolls here, or that any of the specific individuals you single out are such.
PaulT and That One Guy didn’t comment on anything substantive because there wasn’t much substance to your comment to address to begin with.
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: in-house TD trolls v the actual "people"
Who cares?
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re:
Again, please use “reply to this” when addressing a particular comment so we can easily refer back to the comment you’re quoting from.
There are a few other issues with what you said, but I want to specifically point out a couple, first with these quotes about Stephen T. Stone:
Now, it’s been well established that Stone is an atheist; he does not believe in the existence of any supernatural entity, supernatural phenomena, or life after death. As such, he is clearly not religious, and he is certainly not Catholic. The fact that you think someone can be Catholic and somehow not know it shows how little you know about Catholicism.
The other thing I wanted to address is that, as far as the law is concerned, at least, an accusation isn’t false if it hasn’t been adjudicated to be false or the person in question admits to it (or is clearly uncredible).
As far as credibility of these particular claims is concerned, we have multiple women who never met or knew about the other women who have independently made very similar accusations that are entirely consistent with each other and with what’s known to be true. We also have evidence that measures were taken well before these accusation were made public that suggest that he engaged in behavior consistent with the allegations (like closing the mall). As I recall, some also had corroborating witnesses. That all sounds pretty credible to me.
To be clear, neither Stone nor myself are saying that they are absolutely beyond a doubt true, nor are we saying that Roy Moore should be jailed or legally punished over these allegation until and unless they are proven in a court of law and he is convicted. However, that’s very different from social consequences, doesn’t make the allegations false, and is entirely irrelevant to whether or not anything mentioned is libel or not.
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Isaiah Berlin, ritual defamation, and taboo
That’s great and all, but it has nothing at all to do with the article. I don’t think anyone was saying anything about any of that.
Still, I’ll bite; what “Greta meltdown” are you talking about?
On the post: Court Tells Pro-Trump 12-Year-Old That Calling Him A Defender Of Racism And Sexual Assault Is Protected Speech
Re: Re: Re: bitches gonna bitch
Technically, much like how “bitch” was first used to mean “female dog” (and still is sometimes), “nigger” originally referred to a kind of parasitic mite that would burrow into human skin. Still doesn’t change the offensiveness of the term now, although I will say that “bitch” does have some less female-centric meanings, namely when used as a verb. It’s still generally considered offensive, though.
Next >>