Welcome to the Sexy and Funny Forums forums.

You are currently viewing our forums as a guest which gives you very limited access to what we have to offer. By joining our community you will have access to post replies/topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, remove some of the ads and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Bored? Go watch girls get naked on cam for free!

Go Back   Sexy and Funny Forums > Special Interest > The Master Debaters
User Name
Password

Latest from S&F
Random S&F
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes 0 Attachment(s)
Old 07-09-2017, 04:35 AM   #21
ShuGuy
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,283
Casino Cash: $5359
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.91
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASHSON
Te whole exercise has nothing to do with the fact that the man might be a racist.
It was a case of him poking fun at a news corporation and they couldn't stand it. They used corporate muscle to shut him up, far too late as the video is out there. They over-reacted and the flack they're getting from the over-reaction is worse than the laughs that came from the original video.
It's not really a freedom of speech issue as that is peripheral to the whole deal.

It is a case of a big corporation using blatant coercion to threaten someone who they felt offended them.

What recourse does an individual have when menaced by a corporation?
The mafia rules.

Ashy, I know you're a busy guy doing fuck-all down in Convict Country (maybe sodomizing a koala? Iunno what you backwards toilet swillers do and I don't much care), but do you really think that CNN was so much bothered by the video as they were pursuing a story because it happened to be something that Trump decided to tweet about?

Don't answer that, because I like having a shred of faith in the average intelligence of humanity and you and dart both do your best jobs to remove that from me.
ShuGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 04:47 AM   #22
65dart
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,289
Casino Cash: $9934
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.09
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13156 total rep)x2
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13156 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13156 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
Quote:
Originally Posted by 65dart

You should feel sorry for him. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Just because you think what he said is horrible doesn't mean shit. Just your statement of that shows your ignorance of the matter. You don't get to pick and choose what you like when it comes to free speech. So if your for free speech you should be just as offended, when ever someone from BLM speaks. But your not, so it shows your just full of shit, And calling people RWNJ is an excuse to explain away your hate and your want to limit free speech.

Except nothing I said even remotely indicates that I want a limit on free speech. It would behoove you to actually take a minute and learn about concepts that you want to discuss (like, say, whether or not Alaska has public schools or state parks) before you decide to shit all over a topic with dart logic.

You have no problem for him being attacked for what he said. That indicates your against free speech. Mabey you should learn a little about concepts. Such as Alaska barely having any schools or parks because their population is so low, is relative to saying they basically don't have them. I'm sorry that your so dense that had to be spelled out for you. But since you brought up, If that is still your defense against you not even having a clue to what you were talking about your idea of talking about anything conceptual is a joke.
65dart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 04:51 AM   #23
65dart
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,289
Casino Cash: $9934
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.09
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13156 total rep)x2
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13156 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13156 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASHSON
Te whole exercise has nothing to do with the fact that the man might be a racist.
It was a case of him poking fun at a news corporation and they couldn't stand it. They used corporate muscle to shut him up, far too late as the video is out there. They over-reacted and the flack they're getting from the over-reaction is worse than the laughs that came from the original video.
It's not really a freedom of speech issue as that is peripheral to the whole deal.

It is a case of a big corporation using blatant coercion to threaten someone who they felt offended them.

What recourse does an individual have when menaced by a corporation?
The mafia rules.

Ashy, I know you're a busy guy doing fuck-all down in Convict Country (maybe sodomizing a koala? Iunno what you backwards toilet swillers do and I don't much care), but do you really think that CNN was so much bothered by the video as they were pursuing a story because it happened to be something that Trump decided to tweet about?

Don't answer that, because I like having a shred of faith in the average intelligence of humanity and you and dart both do your best jobs to remove that from me.

Wow you make a comment like that about Australians then question my intelligence. Holy fuck you have to the irony in that.

By the way if you feel everyone around you is stupid it is typically your the stupid one. So you might want to stop and think on that for a moment.
65dart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 05:07 AM   #24
ASHSON
I'm not arrogant. I'm just better than you.
 
ASHSON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 10,869
Casino Cash: $107858
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 45.13
ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)x75
ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)ASHSON has a reputation beyond repute (490493 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
Ashy, I know you're a busy guy doing fuck-all down in Convict Country (maybe sodomizing a koala? Iunno what you backwards toilet swillers do and I don't much care), but do you really think that CNN was so much bothered by the video as they were pursuing a story because it happened to be something that Trump decided to tweet about?

Don't answer that, because I like having a shred of faith in the average intelligence of humanity and you and dart both do your best jobs to remove that from me.
Pursuing a story?
How many columns do you think they got about someone putting a funny video on the internet?

If you try to sodomize a koala you're risking your life.
Have you seen the claws on those beasts?
Not only that, to go catch one you have to watch out for the drop-bears. They're killers.
Here's a film of a drop-bear attack.
Reference on Drop-Bears Australian Geographic
__________________

Last edited by ASHSON : 07-09-2017 at 05:10 AM.
ASHSON is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 05:07 AM   #25
brandishwar
I have reached the point of no return
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Kansas City area
Posts: 440
Casino Cash: $2029
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 18.02
brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)
brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)
+10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
You continuing to defend someone spewing racist anti-Semitic shit who suddenly comes to Jesus when it's even alluded to it being connected to him is a pretty fucked up way to describe free speech.

I'm not defending HanAssholeSolo. I'm defending the principle.

This is a day and age where making any kind of argument against the ruling ideologies of social justice and feminism could have a lot of people trying to knock down your door and contact your employer to get you fired. That makes anonymity all the more important today.

To say I'm defending HanAssholeSolo would be about saying I defend the WBC because I believe the (almost unanimous) outcome in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 US 443 (2011), was the proper outcome. I can defend the principle without defending any specific person. I don't have to agree with someone's speech merely to defend their right to say it.

And that includes the right to be bigoted as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
I legitimately wasn't aware that shedding some daylight on something, effectively doing the opposite of suppressing or censoring speech, was in itself an attack on free speech (also, still kinda confused how a private institution can do that when the First Amendment is strictly referring to government, a point you acknowledged then promptly forgot).

Again I defend the principle of free speech, which extends beyond the right to free speech. The First Amendment, incorporated to the States via the Fourteenth, means that the government cannot compel nor censor speech.

The principle goes much further. And if you cite only the First Amendment while defending the doxxing of people merely because they say some questionable shit online, you're not defending the principle of free speech.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
The other purpose was to have their arguments made on merit rather than celebrity/infamy. So unless I missed the article where John Jay went on about how much he hated Jews, it's an idiotic comparison and you should be ashamed of it.

You've actually touched on the reason anonymity with free speech is quite important. Anonymity can remove the speaker from the equation, allowing the arguments or statements to live or die based on what those statements are without including into it who made the statements in question.

It's actually why a lot of YouTube content creators actually chose to not use their face or likeness on camera, instead making whatever arguments they chose behind their username and/or avatar. That way whatever they said can be separated from who said it. Largely.

DMCA abuse through YouTube was one avenue by which many tried to de-anonymize people. Not for saying anything hateful. But merely for saying things they didn't like.

In some parts of the world, anonymity is essential to not losing your life. There are parts of this world where speaking out against your government is dangerous to your health. And where the government will actively try to track down and identify dissidents so they can be strung up.

The guy behind the CNN meme certainly doesn't face that kind of official repercussion in the United States and much of the Western world. But "strung up" can mean a number of different things. Not facing official repercussions doesn't mean the repercussions he may face for being de-anonymized aren't just as bad. Again, lost livelihoods. Having to flee where you live.

The fact you're defending that potential outcome is quite sickening, really. There are people who've said much less who've faced very real repercussions in their real lives. Including having their lives put at risk through swatting. All for merely speaking out against the ruling ideologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
The moral of the story is literally this simple: don't say stupid shit on the internet and expect it to be private

Really? I'd hope given the backlash against CNN, the lesson was actually to not try to de-anonymize people merely because you don't like something they said. Like I pointed out earlier, CNN tried to identify him because of the meme, not because of everything else he said on Reddit. That was merely icing on the cake. And yet you're defending CNN trying to out him for making the meme by citing everything else they found in the process. "Oh he's a hateful person, so it's okay." Ugh...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
I have zero sympathy for someone who suffers the consequences of actually having to face repercussions of hateful, vile speech. That's the thing about freedom of speech; you take the good of being able to say everything you want, you also take the responsibility of being held accountable.

Is doxxing a legitimate response to someone's speech? The answer is either yes or no. No "if the speech is [insert subject here]" or "hate speech isn't free speech" (spoiler: yes it is). It's either yes, doxxing is always a legitimate response, or no it is never a legitimate response.

Last edited by brandishwar : 07-09-2017 at 05:29 AM.
brandishwar is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 03:15 PM   #26
ShuGuy
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,283
Casino Cash: $5359
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.91
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASHSON
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
Ashy, I know you're a busy guy doing fuck-all down in Convict Country (maybe sodomizing a koala? Iunno what you backwards toilet swillers do and I don't much care), but do you really think that CNN was so much bothered by the video as they were pursuing a story because it happened to be something that Trump decided to tweet about?

Don't answer that, because I like having a shred of faith in the average intelligence of humanity and you and dart both do your best jobs to remove that from me.
Pursuing a story?
How many columns do you think they got about someone putting a funny video on the internet?

If you try to sodomize a koala you're risking your life.
Have you seen the claws on those beasts?
Not only that, to go catch one you have to watch out for the drop-bears. They're killers.
Here's a film of a drop-bear attack.
Reference on Drop-Bears Australian Geographic

Are you fucking daft? The only reason this stupid gif was news was because Trump retweeted it. If you ever go to The Donald, you'll see much worse things being said about CNN. This idea that it's all about hurt feelings is hilariously biased.
ShuGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 03:25 PM   #27
ShuGuy
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,283
Casino Cash: $5359
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.91
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandishwar
I'm not defending HanAssholeSolo. I'm defending the principle.

This is a day and age where making any kind of argument against the ruling ideologies of social justice and feminism could have a lot of people trying to knock down your door and contact your employer to get you fired. That makes anonymity all the more important today.

To say I'm defending HanAssholeSolo would be about saying I defend the WBC because I believe the (almost unanimous) outcome in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 US 443 (2011), was the proper outcome. I can defend the principle without defending any specific person. I don't have to agree with someone's speech merely to defend their right to say it.

And that includes the right to be bigoted as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
I legitimately wasn't aware that shedding some daylight on something, effectively doing the opposite of suppressing or censoring speech, was in itself an attack on free speech (also, still kinda confused how a private institution can do that when the First Amendment is strictly referring to government, a point you acknowledged then promptly forgot).

Again I defend the principle of free speech, which extends beyond the right to free speech. The First Amendment, incorporated to the States via the Fourteenth, means that the government cannot compel nor censor speech.

The principle goes much further. And if you cite only the First Amendment while defending the doxxing of people merely because they say some questionable shit online, you're not defending the principle of free speech.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
The other purpose was to have their arguments made on merit rather than celebrity/infamy. So unless I missed the article where John Jay went on about how much he hated Jews, it's an idiotic comparison and you should be ashamed of it.

You've actually touched on the reason anonymity with free speech is quite important. Anonymity can remove the speaker from the equation, allowing the arguments or statements to live or die based on what those statements are without including into it who made the statements in question.

It's actually why a lot of YouTube content creators actually chose to not use their face or likeness on camera, instead making whatever arguments they chose behind their username and/or avatar. That way whatever they said can be separated from who said it. Largely.

DMCA abuse through YouTube was one avenue by which many tried to de-anonymize people. Not for saying anything hateful. But merely for saying things they didn't like.

In some parts of the world, anonymity is essential to not losing your life. There are parts of this world where speaking out against your government is dangerous to your health. And where the government will actively try to track down and identify dissidents so they can be strung up.

The guy behind the CNN meme certainly doesn't face that kind of official repercussion in the United States and much of the Western world. But "strung up" can mean a number of different things. Not facing official repercussions doesn't mean the repercussions he may face for being de-anonymized aren't just as bad. Again, lost livelihoods. Having to flee where you live.

The fact you're defending that potential outcome is quite sickening, really. There are people who've said much less who've faced very real repercussions in their real lives. Including having their lives put at risk through swatting. All for merely speaking out against the ruling ideologies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
The moral of the story is literally this simple: don't say stupid shit on the internet and expect it to be private

Really? I'd hope given the backlash against CNN, the lesson was actually to not try to de-anonymize people merely because you don't like something they said. Like I pointed out earlier, CNN tried to identify him because of the meme, not because of everything else he said on Reddit. That was merely icing on the cake. And yet you're defending CNN trying to out him for making the meme by citing everything else they found in the process. "Oh he's a hateful person, so it's okay." Ugh...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
I have zero sympathy for someone who suffers the consequences of actually having to face repercussions of hateful, vile speech. That's the thing about freedom of speech; you take the good of being able to say everything you want, you also take the responsibility of being held accountable.

Is doxxing a legitimate response to someone's speech? The answer is either yes or no. No "if the speech is [insert subject here]" or "hate speech isn't free speech" (spoiler: yes it is). It's either yes, doxxing is always a legitimate response, or no it is never a legitimate response.

I'm not going to waste any more words on someone who clearly doesn't understand what the First Amendment is about and instead brings up fucking YouTubers violating intellectual property as a defense. CNN isn't the government; you have provided zero rationale to explain how its investigation where it, quite frankly, threw the bigot a bone that it didn't need to, violates the First Amendment.

Not only that, but you've ignored the real issue, which was that we have a president who endorses this type of stupid shit instead of actually trying to govern. Will I expect that criticism to come from anyone on the right, who felt it necessary to say how offended they were when Obama went on to a certain talkshow? Or wore a tan suit? Or had mustard? No, of course not. And the very fact that you twits are all instead (wrongly) clamoring about "muh freeze peaches," means that that's the official party line. I look forward to the histrionic fainting that will occur when the next Democratic president does something that they believe "diminishes the presidency." Probably by saying "yolo" or something.
ShuGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 04:59 PM   #28
iron_warmonger
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,925
Casino Cash: $3905
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 1.44
iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)iron_warmonger has a reputation beyond repute (4226 total rep)
Default


The first line of the CNN feed says it all!!!

__________________
When invaders come our leaders are our first line of defense, unless our leaders are the invaders.

If you are going to act like the Sheriff of Nottingham, don't be surprised when Robin Hood comes to your door.
iron_warmonger is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2017, 05:17 PM   #29
brandishwar
I have reached the point of no return
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Kansas City area
Posts: 440
Casino Cash: $2029
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 18.02
brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)
brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)
+30
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
I'm not going to waste any more words on someone who clearly doesn't understand what the First Amendment is about and instead brings up fucking YouTubers violating intellectual property as a defense. CNN isn't the government; you have provided zero rationale to explain how its investigation where it, quite frankly, threw the bigot a bone that it didn't need to, violates the First Amendment.

And you obviously didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say there was any violation of intellectual property. I said that DMCA abuse used as an early way of trying to de-anonymize content creators. Because YouTube's copyright reporting system required the provision of personal information to counter a DMCA claim against a video. And that personal information was provided to the person who filed the claim. Ipso facto, de-anonymization through DMCA abuse.

And I understand the First Amendment quite well, too. Again, you didn't see where I said that this is about more than the First Amendment. The principle of free speech, not just the right to it. Learn to fucking read already instead of just skimming over something merely because you looked at the username and thought "not this guy again..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
Not only that, but you've ignored the real issue, which was that we have a president who endorses this type of stupid shit instead of actually trying to govern.

So the President isn't allowed to enjoy and share a little satire here and there? The fact CNN took it personally and tracked down who made it is the real issue here. You're just too focused on the fact that Trump shared it that you're missing this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
And the very fact that you twits are all instead (wrongly) clamoring about "muh freeze peaches," means that that's the official party line.
(Emphasis mine)

I was wondering when you'd try to bring that up. "I don't want a limit on free speech". "Muh Freeze Peach!!!" Fuck you. You don't agree with the principle of free speech and are all for seeing people deplatformed and de-anonymized over speech you disagree with, regardless of how much you try to say the opposite.
brandishwar is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2017, 12:05 PM   #30
infantrystud
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
infantrystud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,866
Casino Cash: $3020
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.38
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)x2
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)
Default

Point, Brandishwar! Good post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandishwar
And you obviously didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say there was any violation of intellectual property. I said that DMCA abuse used as an early way of trying to de-anonymize content creators. Because YouTube's copyright reporting system required the provision of personal information to counter a DMCA claim against a video. And that personal information was provided to the person who filed the claim. Ipso facto, de-anonymization through DMCA abuse.

And I understand the First Amendment quite well, too. Again, you didn't see where I said that this is about more than the First Amendment. The principle of free speech, not just the right to it. Learn to fucking read already instead of just skimming over something merely because you looked at the username and thought "not this guy again..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
Not only that, but you've ignored the real issue, which was that we have a president who endorses this type of stupid shit instead of actually trying to govern.

So the President isn't allowed to enjoy and share a little satire here and there? The fact CNN took it personally and tracked down who made it is the real issue here. You're just too focused on the fact that Trump shared it that you're missing this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
And the very fact that you twits are all instead (wrongly) clamoring about "muh freeze peaches," means that that's the official party line.
(Emphasis mine)

I was wondering when you'd try to bring that up. "I don't want a limit on free speech". "Muh Freeze Peach!!!" Fuck you. You don't agree with the principle of free speech and are all for seeing people deplatformed and de-anonymized over speech you disagree with, regardless of how much you try to say the opposite.
__________________
------------


Quote:
darthbob88

"Dammit all to hell, nitpicking inspectors with clipboards and pencils behind their ears have done more to protect the rights of this nation than soldiers ever have."
infantrystud is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2017, 11:03 AM   #31
sleepneat
wants a temporary marriage to Renata
 
sleepneat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: just leaving your mother's bedroom
Posts: 5,580
Casino Cash: $1970
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 3.76
sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)x3
sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)sleepneat has a reputation beyond repute (20981 total rep)
+20
Default

The only one triggered in this thread is shu-dick.

All the times, your mulatto savior was bowing to monarchs, apologizing for America, nominating racists for his cabinet, didn't trigger you as much as a fucking tweet?

Dude..........
sleepneat is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2017, 01:34 PM   #32
SilentBob
Snoochie Boochies
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,533
Casino Cash: $1485
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 17.84
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)x9
SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)SilentBob has a reputation beyond repute (63034 total rep)
+10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandishwar
And you obviously didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say there was any violation of intellectual property. I said that DMCA abuse used as an early way of trying to de-anonymize content creators. Because YouTube's copyright reporting system required the provision of personal information to counter a DMCA claim against a video. And that personal information was provided to the person who filed the claim. Ipso facto, de-anonymization through DMCA abuse.

And I understand the First Amendment quite well, too. Again, you didn't see where I said that this is about more than the First Amendment. The principle of free speech, not just the right to it. Learn to fucking read already instead of just skimming over something merely because you looked at the username and thought "not this guy again..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
Not only that, but you've ignored the real issue, which was that we have a president who endorses this type of stupid shit instead of actually trying to govern.

So the President isn't allowed to enjoy and share a little satire here and there? The fact CNN took it personally and tracked down who made it is the real issue here. You're just too focused on the fact that Trump shared it that you're missing this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
And the very fact that you twits are all instead (wrongly) clamoring about "muh freeze peaches," means that that's the official party line.
(Emphasis mine)

I was wondering when you'd try to bring that up. "I don't want a limit on free speech". "Muh Freeze Peach!!!" Fuck you. You don't agree with the principle of free speech and are all for seeing people deplatformed and de-anonymized over speech you disagree with, regardless of how much you try to say the opposite.

The thing about shuguy is that he is not very smart, he doesn't research anything and just spews verbal diarrhea. If he doesn't agree with the truth he attacks the source and when proven wrong yet again he then runs away with his tail between his legs
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Carlin
“Political correctness is America's newest form of intolerance, and it is especially pernicious because it comes disguised as tolerance. It presents itself as fairness, yet attempts to restrict and control people's language with strict codes and rigid rules. I'm not sure that's the way to fight discrimination. I'm not sure silencing people or forcing them to alter their speech is the best method for solving problems that go much deeper than speech.”
SilentBob is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 03:47 AM   #33
ShuGuy
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,283
Casino Cash: $5359
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.91
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
Default

My, you've certainly gotten the cheap seats all riled up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandishwar
And you obviously didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say there was any violation of intellectual property. I said that DMCA abuse used as an early way of trying to de-anonymize content creators. Because YouTube's copyright reporting system required the provision of personal information to counter a DMCA claim against a video. And that personal information was provided to the person who filed the claim. Ipso facto, de-anonymization through DMCA abuse.

Sure sounds like it was a matter of them violating IP laws and the content owner was using it to see who to send the notice to. But this is a minor on a much larger front that you're wrong about, so let's just focus on the main event.

Quote:
And I understand the First Amendment quite well, too. Again, you didn't see where I said that this is about more than the First Amendment. The principle of free speech, not just the right to it.

Number 1 way to know that someone's arguing out of their ass: they start talking about "the principle" of something. You've basically already realized you're wrong, so now it's about moving goal posts. Great start.

Quote:
Learn to fucking read already instead of just skimming over something merely because you looked at the username and thought "not this guy again..."

2 things: 1) have something worth reading if you want me to do anything but skim, and 2) I don't think about you at all. I legitimately couldn't say what your username was unless I scrolled up or down right now.

Quote:
So the President isn't allowed to enjoy and share a little satire here and there?

Is this a "little satire"? Also, is this even satire? In what world is this satire? It's just a shitpost being shared around by the same guy who has nuclear codes. I have higher standards for him than I have for The_Donald posters. As my point has been (which you've conveniently ignored) is that Trump is continually met with lower and lower expectations of what's acceptable in a way that Obama was never given. The people who admonished him for appearing on a show to promote voting are the same ones cheering on Trump gleefully showing his disdain for the free media.

Quote:
The fact CNN took it personally and tracked down who made it is the real issue here.

This is pure conjecture. There is no actual evidence that "CNN took it personally." This is merely yours and the fellow RWNJ who are jerking it to you right now's opinion. The shitty meme was not news until the president shared it, in which case it's extremely newsworthy.

Quote:
You're just too focused on the fact that Trump shared it that you're missing this.

I know, you're giving your guy a pass because you really want to argue about rights that don't exist. I'm sorry, "principles" that don't exist.

Quote:
I was wondering when you'd try to bring that up. "I don't want a limit on free speech". "Muh Freeze Peach!!!" Fuck you. You don't agree with the principle of free speech and are all for seeing people deplatformed and de-anonymized over speech you disagree with, regardless of how much you try to say the opposite.

At no point have you even remotely argued for fucking freedom of speech. This much is clear when you cite a Supreme Court case about having the right to say offensive things in public, which I am not arguing nor have I ever argued against someone having the right to. You have argued for the right to be anonymous in a public space. That's a nonexistent right. You have no expectation of privacy or anonymity in a public space. Posting on a heavily trafficked subreddit that is accessible to everyone is the very definition of a public space on the internet.

So if you don't have the right to it, you should be smart about it. If there are statements that you're making that you don't want to be attached to you (because you're a racist little shit in this case), then don't include personal details that someone can use to find out who you are. I'm sorry that some alleged 40 year old didn't know the rules to not get caught with your dick out, but that that doesn't change that the right doesn't exist.

I'm sorry that you see yourself in this neckbeardy basement-dwelling nutjob, but you are literally making shit up, citing things that are completely irrelevant to your case, and generally trying really hard at having the appearance of a well-reasoned argument without actually having one.

So go right ahead and fuck yourself with this sanctimonious "but muh principalllz" bullshit. You're the reason why we can't have nice things.
ShuGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 03:52 AM   #34
ShuGuy
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,283
Casino Cash: $5359
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.91
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepneat
All the times, your mulatto savior was bowing to monarchs

Should he have been signing record-breaking military deals with them instead?

Quote:
apologizing for America

Literally never happened.

Quote:
nominating racists for his cabinet

A racist guy is calling out Obama for racism while his pick of president chose a guy who was too racist to be a judge 30 years as his attorney general. Right.

ShuGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 03:58 AM   #35
ShuGuy
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,283
Casino Cash: $5359
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.91
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SilentBob
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandishwar
And you obviously didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say there was any violation of intellectual property. I said that DMCA abuse used as an early way of trying to de-anonymize content creators. Because YouTube's copyright reporting system required the provision of personal information to counter a DMCA claim against a video. And that personal information was provided to the person who filed the claim. Ipso facto, de-anonymization through DMCA abuse.

And I understand the First Amendment quite well, too. Again, you didn't see where I said that this is about more than the First Amendment. The principle of free speech, not just the right to it. Learn to fucking read already instead of just skimming over something merely because you looked at the username and thought "not this guy again..."



So the President isn't allowed to enjoy and share a little satire here and there? The fact CNN took it personally and tracked down who made it is the real issue here. You're just too focused on the fact that Trump shared it that you're missing this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
And the very fact that you twits are all instead (wrongly) clamoring about "muh freeze peaches," means that that's the official party line.
(Emphasis mine)

I was wondering when you'd try to bring that up. "I don't want a limit on free speech". "Muh Freeze Peach!!!" Fuck you. You don't agree with the principle of free speech and are all for seeing people deplatformed and de-anonymized over speech you disagree with, regardless of how much you try to say the opposite.

The thing about shuguy is that he is not very smart, he doesn't research anything and just spews verbal diarrhea. If he doesn't agree with the truth he attacks the source and when proven wrong yet again he then runs away with his tail between his legs

Still obsessed with me, huh? I'm slightly flattered, but mostly creeped out. Probably the title of a book about your dating life, but if you really want to know why I didn't respond to you, it's because I already showed I was right. You went off on some bullshit argument about how what I said was construed as bullying, and the facts support that Obama signed the largest (at the time) military aid deal in history which you tried to belittle. If you want someone to keep arguing with you long past the point of no return, holler at dart or find some friends in summer school.
ShuGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 05:12 AM   #36
brandishwar
I have reached the point of no return
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Kansas City area
Posts: 440
Casino Cash: $2029
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 18.02
brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)
brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)brandishwar has a reputation beyond repute (7929 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGy
You've basically already realized you're wrong, so now it's about moving goal posts.

Not moving any goal posts. You just need to get your vision checked. The posts have been in the same place the entire time. You're only just now noticing where they are. I've been arguing from the principle of free speech the entire time.

And I'm not going to keep trying to argue the YouTube DMCA events as you clearly aren't listening to what I'm saying. It had little to do with any actual IP violation and was more about trying to get ahold of a content creator's personal information, or to just get a particular video removed from YouTube merely for not liking its content. Also known as a "false DMCA". Google it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
At no point have you even remotely argued for fucking freedom of speech. This much is clear when you cite a Supreme Court case about having the right to say offensive things in public, which I am not arguing nor have I ever argued against someone having the right to. You have argued for the right to be anonymous in a public space. That's a nonexistent right. You have no expectation of privacy or anonymity in a public space. Posting on a heavily trafficked subreddit that is accessible to everyone is the very definition of a public space on the internet.

I mentioned Snyder v. Phelps due to the Westboro Baptist Church being sued due to the content of their speech. Another example of what is not a legitimate response to speech you do not like or, likely in this case, find detestable.

I also haven't argued for any "right to be anonymous in a public space". I said that anonymity is important. But if a person is trying to be anonymous in a public space, outing that person is not a legitimate response to what that person has said. For example if someone wants to walk around covered head to toe like a ninja carrying a megaphone sounding off against... whatever, publicly identifying or exposing that person is not a legitimate action. The only legitimate reason to publicly identify such a person would be if there is probable cause to believe they committed a crime, and that person is then arrested on that probable cause.

But even if a person wasn't walking around covered head to toe, it still would not be a legitimate response to publicly identify that person due only to their speech. I mean would you deem it legitimate for someone to write a letter to the newspaper that says "The guy walking around with the megaphone yesterday? I work with him. His name is [first and last name] and he works for [employer]"?

It's why de-anonymizing is a form of doxxing. Unmasking you from behind your username and avatar on this forum or elsewhere fall under that. I don't know who you are. And attempting to find out who you are merely because of what you've been writing here would not be a legitimate response to it.

And you have an expectation of privacy that, if violated, I'm sure you'd be sounding off BIG TIME. You expect that the forum moderators aren't going to publicly post identifying information about you -- such as your e-mail, the IP address(es) from which the account has been accessed, etc. Just as you'd also likely start using the various reporting features to alert the forum staff should anyone identify you and post your personally-identifying information to this forum merely for not liking what you're saying here.

The only difference between that and HanAssholeSolo is he wasn't outed on a subreddit, but through CNN. And CNN made the mistake of publicly posting they'd identified him. The journalist could've abstained from writing about the person entirely. But they chose to not. Instead they went one step beyond too far by saying they reserve the right to publicly post his identifying information.

Now sure a person who publicly posts of their own free will through their own account "Hi my name is [name] and I live at [address] in [wherever, somewhere]" cannot then roll that back and demand their privacy be respected. With the possible exception of that person realizing their stupidity and deleting the post. But that isn't what happened with HanAssholeSolo. They navigated through all of his posts and his profile and pieced together enough of the puzzle to identify him.

Same with how you might theoretically be identified. Whether here or elsewhere. Same with me.

Do you understand yet?
brandishwar is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 05:47 AM   #37
ShuGuy
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,283
Casino Cash: $5359
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.91
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brandishwar
Not moving any goal posts. You just need to get your vision checked. The posts have been in the same place the entire time. You're only just now noticing where they are. I've been arguing from the principle of free speech the entire time.


It's sad that you don't seem to understand what you're arguing about then, because everything you're blathering about is relating to anonymity, not free speech.

Quote:
I mentioned Snyder v. Phelps due to the Westboro Baptist Church being sued due to the content of their speech. Another example of what is not a legitimate response to speech you do not like or, likely in this case, find detestable.


Literally could not have been more irrelevant to the point at hand if you tried. No one has been arguing that the State has a right to crucify anyone for their beliefs. Saying that people don't have a right to treat a racist, well, like a racist is a suppression of free speech is, however. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse at this point.

Quote:
I also haven't argued for any "right to be anonymous in a public space".

This is literally all you are trying to argue by saying that journalism is bad because you believe that "the principle of free speech" involves being anonymous.

Quote:
But if a person is trying to be anonymous in a public space, outing that person is not a legitimate response to what that person has said. For example if someone wants to walk around covered head to toe like a ninja carrying a megaphone sounding off against... whatever, publicly identifying or exposing that person is not a legitimate action.

Define legitimate. Oh wait, you can't, because we're talking about "principles" that you make up on the fly.

Quote:
The only legitimate reason to publicly identify such a person would be if there is probable cause to believe they committed a crime, and that person is then arrested on that probable cause.

That's why we're talking about actions taken by the State, right? OH WAIT. I'm not supposed to mention that because that's not "da principalz."

Quote:
I mean would you deem it legitimate for someone to write a letter to the newspaper that says "The guy walking around with the megaphone yesterday? I work with him. His name is [first and last name] and he works for [employer]"?

Yes, because that's a legitimate (probably the first time that word has been used correctly in the past 2 posts) expression of free speech. I can write whatever I'd like.

Quote:
It's why de-anonymizing is a form of doxxing. Unmasking you from behind your username and avatar on this forum or elsewhere fall under that. I don't know who you are. And attempting to find out who you are merely because of what you've been writing here would not be a legitimate response to it.

Are you getting paid per poor usage of legitimate at this point?

Quote:
And you have an expectation of privacy that, if violated, I'm sure you'd be sounding off BIG TIME. You expect that the forum moderators aren't going to publicly post identifying information about you -- such as your e-mail, the IP address(es) from which the account has been accessed, etc. Just as you'd also likely start using the various reporting features to alert the forum staff should anyone identify you and post your personally-identifying information to this forum merely for not liking what you're saying here.

Ding ding ding! Did you finally stumble upon the answer here kiddo? That "expectation" isn't the same as "right"? That private information hidden behind private logins is vastly different than public information posted on a public website?

No, I don't have that much hope for you.

Quote:
The only difference between that and HanAssholeSolo is he wasn't outed on a subreddit, but through CNN. And CNN made the mistake of publicly posting they'd identified him. The journalist could've abstained from writing about the person entirely. But they chose to not. Instead they went one step beyond too far by saying they reserve the right to publicly post his identifying information.

Which, unless there was illegal activity involved, they have every right to do so. A point that you keep trying to dance around by shouting "principle!!!" as shrilly as possible.

Quote:
Now sure a person who publicly posts of their own free will through their own account "Hi my name is [name] and I live at [address] in [wherever, somewhere]" cannot then roll that back and demand their privacy be respected. With the possible exception of that person realizing their stupidity and deleting the post. But that isn't what happened with HanAssholeSolo. They navigated through all of his posts and his profile and pieced together enough of the puzzle to identify him.

Same with how you might theoretically be identified. Whether here or elsewhere. Same with me.

Do you understand yet?

I understand that you continue to have no idea what free speech means, that you continue to hide behind a magical, continually transforming thing you call "principle of free speech," and now I understand that you have a hazy grasp on the word legitimate. Not sure what else you're trying to say at this point.
ShuGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 07:59 AM   #38
65dart
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,289
Casino Cash: $9934
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.09
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13156 total rep)x2
65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13156 total rep)65dart has a reputation beyond repute (13156 total rep)
+10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShuGuy
It's sad that you don't seem to understand what you're arguing about then, because everything you're blathering about is relating to anonymity, not free speech.

Quote:
I mentioned Snyder v. Phelps due to the Westboro Baptist Church being sued due to the content of their speech. Another example of what is not a legitimate response to speech you do not like or, likely in this case, find detestable.


Literally could not have been more irrelevant to the point at hand if you tried. No one has been arguing that the State has a right to crucify anyone for their beliefs. Saying that people don't have a right to treat a racist, well, like a racist is a suppression of free speech is, however. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse at this point.

Quote:
I also haven't argued for any "right to be anonymous in a public space".

This is literally all you are trying to argue by saying that journalism is bad because you believe that "the principle of free speech" involves being anonymous.

Quote:
But if a person is trying to be anonymous in a public space, outing that person is not a legitimate response to what that person has said. For example if someone wants to walk around covered head to toe like a ninja carrying a megaphone sounding off against... whatever, publicly identifying or exposing that person is not a legitimate action.

Define legitimate. Oh wait, you can't, because we're talking about "principles" that you make up on the fly.

Quote:
The only legitimate reason to publicly identify such a person would be if there is probable cause to believe they committed a crime, and that person is then arrested on that probable cause.

That's why we're talking about actions taken by the State, right? OH WAIT. I'm not supposed to mention that because that's not "da principalz."

Quote:
I mean would you deem it legitimate for someone to write a letter to the newspaper that says "The guy walking around with the megaphone yesterday? I work with him. His name is [first and last name] and he works for [employer]"?

Yes, because that's a legitimate (probably the first time that word has been used correctly in the past 2 posts) expression of free speech. I can write whatever I'd like.

Quote:
It's why de-anonymizing is a form of doxxing. Unmasking you from behind your username and avatar on this forum or elsewhere fall under that. I don't know who you are. And attempting to find out who you are merely because of what you've been writing here would not be a legitimate response to it.

Are you getting paid per poor usage of legitimate at this point?

Quote:
And you have an expectation of privacy that, if violated, I'm sure you'd be sounding off BIG TIME. You expect that the forum moderators aren't going to publicly post identifying information about you -- such as your e-mail, the IP address(es) from which the account has been accessed, etc. Just as you'd also likely start using the various reporting features to alert the forum staff should anyone identify you and post your personally-identifying information to this forum merely for not liking what you're saying here.

Ding ding ding! Did you finally stumble upon the answer here kiddo? That "expectation" isn't the same as "right"? That private information hidden behind private logins is vastly different than public information posted on a public website?

No, I don't have that much hope for you.

Quote:
The only difference between that and HanAssholeSolo is he wasn't outed on a subreddit, but through CNN. And CNN made the mistake of publicly posting they'd identified him. The journalist could've abstained from writing about the person entirely. But they chose to not. Instead they went one step beyond too far by saying they reserve the right to publicly post his identifying information.

Which, unless there was illegal activity involved, they have every right to do so. A point that you keep trying to dance around by shouting "principle!!!" as shrilly as possible.

Quote:
Now sure a person who publicly posts of their own free will through their own account "Hi my name is [name] and I live at [address] in [wherever, somewhere]" cannot then roll that back and demand their privacy be respected. With the possible exception of that person realizing their stupidity and deleting the post. But that isn't what happened with HanAssholeSolo. They navigated through all of his posts and his profile and pieced together enough of the puzzle to identify him.

Same with how you might theoretically be identified. Whether here or elsewhere. Same with me.

Do you understand yet?

I understand that you continue to have no idea what free speech means, that you continue to hide behind a magical, continually transforming thing you call "principle of free speech," and now I understand that you have a hazy grasp on the word legitimate. Not sure what else you're trying to say at this point.

Hey shu remember when all the liberals were running around in masks and destroying stuff and calling it a protest. Then when the right said they were cowards, if they were truly for their cause they would show their face. Then all the libs came to their defense that they should be able to protest with anonymity, because they have lives out side the protest. Saying it was their right under free speech. Do you recall any of that. Now your saying none of what the liberals said about free speech isn't true, and anonymity has nothing to do with free speech.

Flip flop much.

Last edited by 65dart : 07-14-2017 at 08:02 AM.
65dart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 12:29 PM   #39
infantrystud
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
infantrystud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,866
Casino Cash: $3020
My Mood:
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 2.38
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)x2
infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)infantrystud has a reputation beyond repute (18757 total rep)
Default

Shuguy #fail #wrong #notwinning

Having a rough go of it this week. Good news is it is the end of the week. There's always next week, Champ. Keep going to plate and taking cuts at the ball. Keep trying really hard.

Some helpful advice - maybe not try so hard to be funny. It likely makes you appear dumber than you might actually be. Although, that's debatable.
__________________
------------


Quote:
darthbob88

"Dammit all to hell, nitpicking inspectors with clipboards and pencils behind their ears have done more to protect the rights of this nation than soldiers ever have."
infantrystud is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2017, 12:33 PM   #40
ShuGuy
Why don't I have a Custom Title by now?
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,283
Casino Cash: $5359
Rep Power: 10
Avg Rep Per Post: 4.91
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)ShuGuy has a reputation beyond repute (11205 total rep)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by infantrystud
Shuguy #fail #wrong #notwinning

Having a rough go of it this week. Good news is it is the end of the week. There's always next week, Champ. Keep going to plate and taking cuts at the ball. Keep trying really hard.

Some helpful advice - maybe not try so hard to be funny. It likely makes you appear dumber than you might actually be. Although, that's debatable.

Lol k

Says the grown man using hashtags who has a pull string approach to arguments. Not really coming from a position of strength there, Triglet.

Last edited by ShuGuy : 07-14-2017 at 12:37 PM.
ShuGuy is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Tags: , , , , , ,



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Users Who Have Viewed This Thread In The Last 7 Days: 0
There are no names to display.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:43 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.