And then the ultra-conservatives in the FBI run narrative, advising people “Don’t Name Them!” so that is harder to investigate the so-called “mass contagion,” or “fame seeking” mass shooter- a far right concoction in most cases, with direct ties to these militant evangelical churches.
That's not a far right concoction, unless you're claiming the field of psychology and social science is a far right thing, because that's where the recommendation comes from. It has nothing to do with investigation - the police are well aware of a killer's name. It's about news reporting, and not glorifying the mass murderer.
The politicians need not do anything. They can just blame the problems on wind and solar energy and their voters will believe them, as we can see from this comment. Campaign contributions keep coming, money that should be spent on improvements is profit instead, and only the people of Texas get screwed. Again.
What video evidence exactly? I've seen video of him talking, nothing more. You say he has all these videos of people harassing him, so where are they?
But below, I have added more “citations” from anecdote.
Those aren't citations, those are you claiming things without any evidence to back them up.
And- people like you sure do enjoy the word “ fallacy, something something.”
I use the word when it fits.
Now, that said, your own failed phallacious“argument from authority” is backfiring on you now, isn’t it?
I never made an argument from authority. I linked to an article with some interesting comments on the subject. If I had said "this person is a psychiatrist and is therefore correct", that would have been an argument from authority.
Yet the evidence is legion, but you are not worth the time for me to link to it.
Oh I see. It's worth the time to write a novella about the subject, but not to copy and paste a few links. Makes perfect sense in some universe probably.
I write for victims, not perpetrators, like yourself,
So now I'm one of the perpetrators of gang stalking too, and not just a skeptic?
Any comment on your government shill, Joe Pierre?
I know nothing about Joe Pierre. So no.
My evidence is there in the Pasco lawsuits.
I did not find anywhere with the text of the lawsuit for free. If you have it feel free to post, unless that is also not worth the time.
I notice you don't have any references at all for your claims. Why is that? And attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself is called an argumentam ad hominem fallacy. Probably works well on Facebook but I don't think many around here will fall for it.
So the Pascoe County program (which is reprehensible) is a system of openly and regularly harassing particular people, by the sheriff's department:
Then, deputies are sent out to monitor, intimidate and harass people on the list. The deputies are instructed to gather as much information as possible about their targets, and routinely show up unannounced at people’s houses to interrogate them about their friends, their families and their comings and goings... Code enforcement is a favorite tactic for ensuring compliance during the deputies’ visits. To coerce people into letting the deputies into their home or answering their questions—or sometimes purely to intimidate them—the deputies slap their victims with citations for innocuous offenses like missing house numbers on the mailbox, chickens in the back yard or unmowed grass on the lawn.
That is a program of systematic harassment, but it doesn't really fit into the phenomenon of gang stalking very well.
By contrast, people who promote the idea of gang stalking say that it is not just the police but all kinds of government agents doing the harassing - fire department, municipal workers, all kinds of things. And they say it isn't just explicit law enforcement related activities, but seemingly random people saying ominous things to the victims as they pass them by in public. Many also claim the use of mind control weapons. Self-described targeted individuals often display symptoms of mental illness such as hallucinations.
If you want to convince anyone you're a rational person with a firm grip on reality... that is not the way to go about it. But you are right about one thing. There is no way I would ever give my real contact details to you.
You would think if he had videos of the police harassing him, kicking down his door, and shooting at his house he would put those on his gofundme page instead of just talking at the camera.
the U.S. government should focus its efforts on things that work.
That is not generally how Congress operates. They want things that get them reelected. Whether they work or not is somewhere between secondary and immaterial.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We need to have a talk with the First Amendm
Run roughshod over norms and standards and established law and precedent.
And if you think it can't get any worse next time, you're in for a surprise.
This is about pushing back and saving what’s left so we can try to rebuild our civil liberties after we beat back the rising tide of ignorance and fascism.
Saving what we have left by preemptively destroying it?
Second, what the f*** are the other options?
Honestly, I'm not sure. But I don't have to know what the right solution is to recognize problems with another.
So on a practical level, has your proposal ever been tried anywhere and turned out well?
Re: Re: Re: We need to have a talk with the First Amendment
“But this could be abused by someone in the future!” is an excuse to do nothing
No, it's a reason to not do that thing. Suggesting "do nothing" and "burn down our civil liberties" are the only options is a false dichotomy fallacy of grand proportions.
They do it anyway.
Do what? I'm not aware of any laws giving the government control over private citizens' speech. So what is the "it" that they do anyway?
you can help progressives and more push back against the tide of fascism that doesn’t care about your ideals.
Well if you're right then we're truly screwed. The fascists certainly don't care about the ideals of democracy, and if the progressives don't either then America is done. Might as well just have a king at that point because the rest will be window dressing. I can't figure out why that is what you want though.
Is it also that hard to believe that if progressive governments outlaw dangerous lies and punish people for spreading them, that the chance of a corrupt/fascist regime taking power would diminish?
Diminish somewhat? Sure that's easy to believe. Diminish to zero? Not buying it. So how much of a chance of a permanent fascist government are you willing to accept (because once they get the kind of power you want to give them they're not giving it back) in exchange for temporarily reducing the number of lies? And make no mistake, it will temporary. Once President Marjorie Taylor-Greene is in office (or someone like her), her lies will be declared truth, and your truth will be declared dangerous lies. And then maybe you'll think back on how we got into that situation and whether it was worth it.
Re: We need to have a talk with the First Amendment
The problem is, nobody has come up with a way to outlaw dangerous lies that doesn't involve giving a corrupt government (and maybe much worse than corrupt) the power to define what is a dangerous lie, and thus control who is allowed to speak and what they are allowed to say. At least not that I've heard of.
Don’t say it’s dangerous to liberty. The status quo is far, far more dangerous.
Until you can solve the above mentioned problem, I disagree. The situation we're in now is a serious threat to both democracy and public health, but your proposal puts us on the road to 1984.
Someone lies, someone takes them to court for lying, the liar loses and has to pay restitution, and the world gets just a little bit better for it.
You would need a constitutional amendment first, because lies are protected by the first amendment unless they fall under specific defamation or fraud categories, which medical misinformation generally doesn't.
On the post: The Bipartisan Attacks On The Internet Are Easily Understood If You Realize They Just Want To Control Speech Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We need to have a talk with the Firs
I would say I'm sorry that an accurate description of your ideology offends you, but I'm really not.
On the post: State Department Report Repeats Talking Points From Group Who Wants To Ban All Porn
Re: Why is the state department allowing….?
That's not a far right concoction, unless you're claiming the field of psychology and social science is a far right thing, because that's where the recommendation comes from. It has nothing to do with investigation - the police are well aware of a killer's name. It's about news reporting, and not glorifying the mass murderer.
On the post: DEA Gives Former Marine Back $86,900 Cops Took From Him During A Nevada Traffic Stop Caught On Body Cam
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you point to the relevant exception in federal law or court case protecting this right?
On the post: The Bipartisan Attacks On The Internet Are Easily Understood If You Realize They Just Want To Control Speech Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We need to have a talk with the First Amendm
restlessNazi, did you forget to log in?
On the post: Texas Regulators Learned Nothing From February's Carnage, Prepare To Repeat The Cycle
Re:
The politicians need not do anything. They can just blame the problems on wind and solar energy and their voters will believe them, as we can see from this comment. Campaign contributions keep coming, money that should be spent on improvements is profit instead, and only the people of Texas get screwed. Again.
On the post: DEA Gives Former Marine Back $86,900 Cops Took From Him During A Nevada Traffic Stop Caught On Body Cam
Re:
This says ERAD allows seizing funds on prepaid cards, not ATM cards.
https://www.officer.com/command-hq/technology/computers-software/company/12189987/erad-electr onic-recovery-and-access-to-data
On the post: Court Tells Cops Who Got A Man Wrongly Imprisoned For 25 Years That Of Course Framing People For Crimes Is A Rights Violation
Re: Re: Re: Uh…it’s PASCO County Fl
What video evidence exactly? I've seen video of him talking, nothing more. You say he has all these videos of people harassing him, so where are they?
Those aren't citations, those are you claiming things without any evidence to back them up.
I use the word when it fits.
I never made an argument from authority. I linked to an article with some interesting comments on the subject. If I had said "this person is a psychiatrist and is therefore correct", that would have been an argument from authority.
Oh I see. It's worth the time to write a novella about the subject, but not to copy and paste a few links. Makes perfect sense in some universe probably.
So now I'm one of the perpetrators of gang stalking too, and not just a skeptic?
I know nothing about Joe Pierre. So no.
I did not find anywhere with the text of the lawsuit for free. If you have it feel free to post, unless that is also not worth the time.
On the post: Court Tells Cops Who Got A Man Wrongly Imprisoned For 25 Years That Of Course Framing People For Crimes Is A Rights Violation
Re: Uh…it’s PASCO County Fl
I notice you don't have any references at all for your claims. Why is that? And attacking the person making an argument rather than the argument itself is called an argumentam ad hominem fallacy. Probably works well on Facebook but I don't think many around here will fall for it.
On the post: Court Tells Cops Who Got A Man Wrongly Imprisoned For 25 Years That Of Course Framing People For Crimes Is A Rights Violation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:have faith, Richard Moore
So the Pascoe County program (which is reprehensible) is a system of openly and regularly harassing particular people, by the sheriff's department:
That is a program of systematic harassment, but it doesn't really fit into the phenomenon of gang stalking very well.
By contrast, people who promote the idea of gang stalking say that it is not just the police but all kinds of government agents doing the harassing - fire department, municipal workers, all kinds of things. And they say it isn't just explicit law enforcement related activities, but seemingly random people saying ominous things to the victims as they pass them by in public. Many also claim the use of mind control weapons. Self-described targeted individuals often display symptoms of mental illness such as hallucinations.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202010/gang-stalking-real-life- harassment-or-textbook-paranoia
On the post: No, The Arguments Against Florida's & Texas' Content Moderation Bills Would Not Block All Internet Regulations
Newspapers
I don't remember where the word "newspapers" appears in the first amendment, did I miss it?
You may want to reconsider that idiom.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/06/29/326690947/should-saying-someone-is-off-the -reservation-be-off-limits
On the post: Dumb Telecom Take Of The Week: Because The Internet Didn't Explode, Killing Net Neutrality Must Not Have Mattered
Self-defeating argument
If they didn't want to break the rules, they wouldn't be lobbying against them so hard.
On the post: Court Tells Cops Who Got A Man Wrongly Imprisoned For 25 Years That Of Course Framing People For Crimes Is A Rights Violation
Re: Re: Re:
If you want to convince anyone you're a rational person with a firm grip on reality... that is not the way to go about it. But you are right about one thing. There is no way I would ever give my real contact details to you.
On the post: Court Tells Cops Who Got A Man Wrongly Imprisoned For 25 Years That Of Course Framing People For Crimes Is A Rights Violation
Re:
Just to be clear, I am not a supporter, and I think it is more likely his case is one of mental illness than targeted harassment.
On the post: Court Tells Cops Who Got A Man Wrongly Imprisoned For 25 Years That Of Course Framing People For Crimes Is A Rights Violation
Re:
You would think if he had videos of the police harassing him, kicking down his door, and shooting at his house he would put those on his gofundme page instead of just talking at the camera.
On the post: How Attacks On Section 230 Could Put Addiction Recovery Efforts At Risk
Things that work
That is not generally how Congress operates. They want things that get them reelected. Whether they work or not is somewhere between secondary and immaterial.
On the post: The Bipartisan Attacks On The Internet Are Easily Understood If You Realize They Just Want To Control Speech Online
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: We need to have a talk with the First Amendm
And if you think it can't get any worse next time, you're in for a surprise.
Saving what we have left by preemptively destroying it?
Honestly, I'm not sure. But I don't have to know what the right solution is to recognize problems with another.
So on a practical level, has your proposal ever been tried anywhere and turned out well?
On the post: The Bipartisan Attacks On The Internet Are Easily Understood If You Realize They Just Want To Control Speech Online
Re: Re: Re: We need to have a talk with the First Amendment
No, it's a reason to not do that thing. Suggesting "do nothing" and "burn down our civil liberties" are the only options is a false dichotomy fallacy of grand proportions.
Do what? I'm not aware of any laws giving the government control over private citizens' speech. So what is the "it" that they do anyway?
Well if you're right then we're truly screwed. The fascists certainly don't care about the ideals of democracy, and if the progressives don't either then America is done. Might as well just have a king at that point because the rest will be window dressing. I can't figure out why that is what you want though.
Diminish somewhat? Sure that's easy to believe. Diminish to zero? Not buying it. So how much of a chance of a permanent fascist government are you willing to accept (because once they get the kind of power you want to give them they're not giving it back) in exchange for temporarily reducing the number of lies? And make no mistake, it will temporary. Once President Marjorie Taylor-Greene is in office (or someone like her), her lies will be declared truth, and your truth will be declared dangerous lies. And then maybe you'll think back on how we got into that situation and whether it was worth it.
On the post: The Bipartisan Attacks On The Internet Are Easily Understood If You Realize They Just Want To Control Speech Online
Re: We need to have a talk with the First Amendment
The problem is, nobody has come up with a way to outlaw dangerous lies that doesn't involve giving a corrupt government (and maybe much worse than corrupt) the power to define what is a dangerous lie, and thus control who is allowed to speak and what they are allowed to say. At least not that I've heard of.
Until you can solve the above mentioned problem, I disagree. The situation we're in now is a serious threat to both democracy and public health, but your proposal puts us on the road to 1984.
On the post: Federal Court Dismisses Another Negligence Suit Against Online Gun Marketplace Armslist But Says Section 230 Doesn't Protect It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I disagree, I think it's highly inaccurate and leads to harmful conclusions. But that does explain why you would have that view of taxation.
On the post: The Bipartisan Attacks On The Internet Are Easily Understood If You Realize They Just Want To Control Speech Online
Re: Re: Re:
You would need a constitutional amendment first, because lies are protected by the first amendment unless they fall under specific defamation or fraud categories, which medical misinformation generally doesn't.
Next >>