Religious Hate Crime in Pittsburgh: Eight Dead/four wounded

[_EAllusion]

Here we see homophobia in full swing. RI's hateful and anti-homosexual agenda should be noted for all to see.

ZZZZZ ..... ZZZZZ

Wake me up if someone posts anything amusing, OK?

Remember Wade Englund, master logician? One of Wade's favorite things to do was to say terrible things to other posters as a way of mirroring back their behavior to them. The problem with his "conversational mirror" approach was that he didn't really understand the behavior or ideas he was disagreeing with, so his mirror was just relentless implied strawmans. And he seemed to do it mostly because he got a kick out of being a jerk and felt this was a fair-game way to indulge that impulse.

[_EAllusion]

EAllusion perfectly captures what's wrong with the Left and the way they think and communicate. Here:



They're all the same.

- Doc

The "NPC" insult is something I just learned about like a month ago. I'm glad this knowledge has enhanced my understanding of this post.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hurr hurr, yes yes, aren't we so much more nuanced than those others who have different opinions and outlooks on life? I pity them so much. Tsk. Such a shame they're not as smart and enlightened as we are. Yes yes. Harumph.

- Doc

[_Res Ipsa]

For me, it all depends on what you mean by "shutting down sites." If you mean the government stepping in shutting down sites, I agree. That's what free speech is all about. But conservatives need to get some coherency in their arguments about speech. They go positively apoplectic at the notion that a baker can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because that's forcing the baker to "speak," but they ignore the fact that they are arguing that Twitter and Apple and other private companies should be required to broadcast any speech, even if it's speech promoting conspiracy theories against Jews.

The right to free speech means the government can't stop you from speaking. It doesn't mean that you can compel anyone else to broadcast your speech. And it's not like you can't find even the most extreme speech on the internet. Google Christian Identity and you can find all kinds of anti-Semitic speech. Here's the headline story on today's Daily Stormer:

So Much for “If You Don’t Like the Censorship Policies of Twitter, Start Your Own Twitter”
Andrew Anglin

It just never ends with these kikes.

Yep, that last bit is part of the headline.

If the problem is monopoly, then we have remedies for that. But what we're talking about is market actors determining which products they will and will not carry. Fox News gets to decide who gets to speak on their network and Apple gets to decide which apps they will carry. And if the problem is monopoly, get out the trustbusters.

[_Water Dog]

For me, it all depends on what you mean by "shutting down sites." If you mean the government stepping in shutting down sites, I agree. That's what free speech is all about. But conservatives need to get some coherency in their arguments about speech. They go positively apoplectic at the notion that a baker can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because that's forcing the baker to "speak," but they ignore the fact that they are arguing that Twitter and Apple and other private companies should be required to broadcast any speech, even if it's speech promoting conspiracy theories against Jews.

The right to free speech means the government can't stop you from speaking. It doesn't mean that you can compel anyone else to broadcast your speech. And it's not like you can't find even the most extreme speech on the internet. Google Christian Identity and you can find all kinds of anti-Semitic speech. Here's the headline story on today's Daily Stormer:

So Much for “If You Don’t Like the Censorship Policies of Twitter, Start Your Own Twitter”
Andrew Anglin

It just never ends with these kikes.

Yep, that last bit is part of the headline.

If the problem is monopoly, then we have remedies for that. But what we're talking about is market actors determining which products they will and will not carry. Fox News gets to decide who gets to speak on their network and Apple gets to decide which apps they will carry. And if the problem is monopoly, get out the trustbusters.

So, before going here, remind me what your position was re the baker?

[_Res Ipsa]

If you're asking what I've posted here, you remind me. I've got better things to do than comb through my old posts. If you have an argument, lay it out.

[_Water Dog]

If you're asking what I've posted here, you remind me. I've got better things to do than comb through my old posts. If you have an argument, lay it out.

You make everything so difficult, don't you? If you don't want to answer the question, okay then.

[_canpakes]

I guess that even the racists and conspiracy mongers need their safe spaces, or they’ll get their feelings hurt and will lash out, which will then be everyone else’s fault.

As usual, the leftist gets it exactly backwards. When you silence people, censor, enforce "correct" language, restrict their free speech, kick them off a medium, that's YOU creating a safe space for yourself.

Try not to confuse the practice of not letting conspiracy and hate permeate a medium to the point of drowning out rational discussion with ‘creating a safe space’ for rational discussion, especially given how many bad actors exist that deploy the former as sport for dishonest reason.

[_Res Ipsa]

If you're asking what I've posted here, you remind me. I've got better things to do than comb through my old posts. If you have an argument, lay it out.

You make everything so difficult, don't you? If you don't want to answer the question, okay then.

You asked me what my view was, which I assumed referred to past postings here. I recall posting a whole lot about the baker, but I think it was mostly about the free exercise claim and not the free speech issues.

If you want to know what I think about free speech in the case of the baker, I think there are tricky issues there that the Supreme Court hasn't specifically addressed. I think it's pretty clear that the government cannot force the baker to sell a cake that says "Gay marriage is awesome" on it. The government cannot force the baker to put any sort of writing on a cake, because that's clearly speech.

As interpreted by the Supreme Court, speech isn't limited to talking and writing. It also includes conduct intended to communicate. Stuff like art. Or nude dancing. So, we can't say there's no free speech issue with the baker just because we're not talking about writing words on a cake.

The baker case that I'm most familiar with comes down to something like this: a baker has two identical wedding cakes in the shop. She'll sell the first one to opposite sex couples. She won't sell the second to same-sex couples. So, the issue is whether the act of selling the cake is "speech." I'm inclined to think not, although I acknowledge that it's a tricky question.

Now, the case I'm most familiar with, if I recall correctly, involved refusal even to sell off the shelf cupcakes if they were going to be eaten at a reception for a same sex wedding. But with a wedding cake, there are other acts involved other than just selling the cake. There's delivering the cake, there's setting up the cake. So you have to look at the entirety of what's involved to adequately examine the speech issues. Again, I don't think that those actions can be taken as conduct intended to communicate some kind of approval of the wedding. It's a cake being consumed at a party to celebrate the wedding.

In contrast, I don't think the government can require anyone to conduct a wedding ceremony for the same sex couple. That does involve speaking and does communicate an official recognition of the wedding itself. I also think the photographer has a better free speech case than does the baker, because the photography is intertwined with the ceremony itself.

So, please proceed.

[_Res Ipsa]

Problem solved? You poor naïve puppy. You think a local police department can and will arrest an army of harassers who create fake accounts or spoof e-mail addresses?

According to Dog, it’s just fine for Milo to unleash his dude bro fans to harass people he targets off of Twitter, but it’s a horrible suppression of free speech to revoke his Twitter privileges for doing so.

And another stupid argument. I doubt most of the people you're talking about are criminal masterminds and go through all the effort to conceal their identity from Twitter like that. And if they do, so what? You just provided another reason for why your ban makes no sense. They can just go and create another account. What has been accomplished? If you don't respond to them, they're just howling into the ether. Someone can go buy a burner phone and talk into the static all day long... how does this affect you? You act like they're hijacking the system in some way, but that's not how Twitter works. Also, it would be really easy for Twitter to allow for the de-anonymization of certain threads. So someone could post a thread and check the box stating only verified accounts can respond to it. I wonder why they don't offer such a feature? I dunno, perhaps because it would largely prevent antifa thugs from stalking folks like Ben Shapiro the way they do.

What? You have to be a criminal mastermind to make a Twitter account under a pseudonym? I had no idea. Maybe you don't understand that what a number of Milo's dudebro army did in the case of Leslie Jones was to create fake Twitter accounts pretending to be her, then lashing out at the stuff they posted. I wonder if they knew they are criminal masterminds?

The agenda of the dudebros, starting with gamergate, has been to harass people who express points of view they don't like (especially women) relentlessly until they leave the internet. Their express aim is to stop people from speaking. So, yeah, I'd say they've hijacked the Twitter platform to carry out their mission. And Twitter, as a private business, has every right to ban accounts that harass other users. When dudebros harass a women off of Twitter, Twitter has lost a customer. And it's not good advertising to give the world the impression that Twitter values harassers as customers more than they value anyone else. It's smart business to ban accounts used to harass. And if people make a new account and continue the harassment, ban those too.

If Antifa thugs are harassing Ben Shapiro through Twitter, those accounts should be banned, too. But I have to ask, are they posting photoshopped photos with semen on his face? Are they tweeting anti-semitic depictions of jews as vermin? What does this "stalking" you are describing entail?