Slashdot Mirror

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

A walking simulator on 18 million planets.

It's not surprising anyone wants their money back. It's also kind of hard to see how anyone "Stole" the content unless it was the same planet 18 million times.

I'm a bit out of the loop on this game. Is this not a 'fly around in space exploring the galaxy' game? All the screen shots I've seen have just been on the surfaces of planets.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

A walking simulator on 18 million planets.

It's not surprising anyone wants their money back. It's also kind of hard to see how anyone "Stole" the content unless it was the same planet 18 million times.

That review is on Breibart. Shouldn't they fake a video of interesting gameplay and claim it's great?

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

A walking simulator on 18 million planets.

It's not surprising anyone wants their money back. It's also kind of hard to see how anyone "Stole" the content unless it was the same planet 18 million times.

No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.

Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."

Or you're missing context, when someone is currently the target of a harassment campaign they're given a little more leeway than someone who tweets something out of the blue.

And even if there was a double standard (which I don't concede) your comment is still wrong, the alt-right would still be free to say whatever it wants, it would just be that only one side would be able to harass.

Keep in mind that Milo never did that

Milo was clearly encouraging his followers to go after Jones and his other targets. Twitter isn't a court of law, "everybody knows" can be a sufficient standard for them to bad someone for persistent harassment.

but Leslie Jones sure did.

Again context, Jones was trying to retaliate and protect herself from a campaign initiated by Milo.

So have several other people who were verified including a rapper, reporter, and a EiC of a magazine ...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.

I'm not familiar with all of those cases, certainly not the rape threats, and Twitter may have been inconsistent in the past. If so, they will hopefully fix that in the future. No one should be the target of harassment.

But you're also conflating harassment with with social campaigns, like trying to excerpt pressure against shady businesses, or outing people who have done something bad (these campaigns are very troubling, but different from harassment).

For instance I don't think I'd mind as much if Milo had encouraged his followers to call the producer or studio to complain about the movie. The problem is that he was making Twitter into a place where a black actress couldn't really stay.

No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.

Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."

Or you're missing context, when someone is currently the target of a harassment campaign they're given a little more leeway than someone who tweets something out of the blue.

And even if there was a double standard (which I don't concede) your comment is still wrong, the alt-right would still be free to say whatever it wants, it would just be that only one side would be able to harass.

Keep in mind that Milo never did that

Milo was clearly encouraging his followers to go after Jones and his other targets. Twitter isn't a court of law, "everybody knows" can be a sufficient standard for them to bad someone for persistent harassment.

but Leslie Jones sure did.

Again context, Jones was trying to retaliate and protect herself from a campaign initiated by Milo.

So have several other people who were verified including a rapper, reporter, and a EiC of a magazine ...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.

I'm not familiar with all of those cases, certainly not the rape threats, and Twitter may have been inconsistent in the past. If so, they will hopefully fix that in the future. No one should be the target of harassment.

But you're also conflating harassment with with social campaigns, like trying to excerpt pressure against shady businesses, or outing people who have done something bad (these campaigns are very troubling, but different from harassment).

For instance I don't think I'd mind as much if Milo had encouraged his followers to call the producer or studio to complain about the movie. The problem is that he was making Twitter into a place where a black actress couldn't really stay.

Actually, all of the conspiracy-theorists I know are all extremely left-leaning.

Ahem...

http://www.infowars.com/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.

Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."

Keep in mind that Milo never did that, but Leslie Jones sure did. So have several other people who were verified including a rapper, reporter, and a EiC of a magazine ...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.

Disagree all you want, but when you cross into harassment then GTFO. No one is under any obligation to stand there while you abuse them.

Sure thing. Let me know when they actually start going after the actual harassers okay? You know people like Zoe Quinn, Kathleen Cross, Randy Harper, Izzy Galvez, Chris Kluwe and so on. You know, the people who claim that they're against harassment...right out there...harassing people, doxing people, and so on.

No one is stopping you from spewing whatever inane stupidy passes for incitement commentary among your crowd. You'll be just as free to make an idiot of yourself on Twitter once these changes are in effect.

Really? You should pay more attention, because that's exactly what's happening. This is just one case of many, where there is one set of rules for one group of people and another for the "right kind of people."

Keep in mind that Milo never did that, but Leslie Jones sure did. So have several other people who were verified including a rapper, reporter, and a EiC of a magazine ...all of whom sic'd their followers on other people for engaging in wrong think. There's also another case of a person threatening a reporter with rape...for weeks(wish I could remember her name but it escapes me atm). Those are just off the top of my head. You know what the difference between them and Milo is? Milo doesn't carry the same political ideology as them. That reporter? She's a conservative. But in both cases when there are actual threats against them? Twitter has done nothing.

Disagree all you want, but when you cross into harassment then GTFO. No one is under any obligation to stand there while you abuse them.

Sure thing. Let me know when they actually start going after the actual harassers okay? You know people like Zoe Quinn, Kathleen Cross, Randy Harper, Izzy Galvez, Chris Kluwe and so on. You know, the people who claim that they're against harassment...right out there...harassing people, doxing people, and so on.

Two in a row, you're really doing a great job as a living example. "Alt-right" along with "reactionary" is just yet another smear word invented by SJWs to attack anyone committing thoughtcrime.

Yes, because Breitbart is so well known for being an SJW den.

Clinton's Success stories:
Movie : Clinton Cash Movie:Free
Movie Fact Sheet: Fact Sheet
Clinton Death Count: Death list Dont forget Julian assanges head attorney hit by a train, the father of the doc that did hillary's checkup who released some info.
Bill Clinton's Rape Sheet: Victim list Not sure if the 19 year old when he was in the CIA in oxford is on that one at 19 or his supposed best friend at 16 either.
Hillary getting a rapist off, while accusing a 12 year old virgin of being hot for older men: Article with sources here is the interview with her last month: Interview with victim 2016 Because you know a 12 year old wants stitches in her vagina.

I dont have to link hopefully what Comey said about all the lies, treason, and death she caused with her pay for play clinton foundation or the fun mails that keep coming out with FOIA. All though this one should give you an idea of the kind of treason we are talking about: Treason so high this guy can't even get access to the pages


Those of you that say I'm voting for Hillary because Trump is a meanie or a scoundrel, take a look at what this woman has caused already. If she is elected you will have done the world the biggest proof is in the pudding injustice ever.

The claim appears to be somewhat more widespread.

Who do they think their fooling?

Twitter is well known for either being extremely tolerant or intolerant of bullying, death threats, personal attacks all based on your politics. Want to threaten to kill a cop? Go right ahead. Fancy hate speech against white people? That's okay. Want to use twitter to propagate terrorist propaganda? No worries, they can't be bothered to do anything about it.

With twitter, free speech depends on who your victim is. In fact their executives refuse to go on the record saying that they support free speech.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

Trump doesn't want his friend Putin and his friends to get tied to this too much.

Did you do know that Clinton (as SoS) sold 20% of American Uranium reserves to Russia, and coincidentally the Clinton foundation received massive donations from Russia?

Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) sold advanced technology to Russia and coincidentally received "tens of millions" of dollars in donations to the Clinton foundation? (Dual-use technology, things that can be used for both industry and military.)

Did you know that Clinton (as SoS) organized and helped build the "Russian Silicon Valley", which opened many US companies to industrial espionage? (17 of 28 companies, both Russian and American, made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.)

Out of curiosity, when you say Trump and Putin are friends, what's your evidence?

The news about another nation having the skills to get into a computer network, stay undetected, able to remove bulk plain text data but then have details about methods used got discovered was strange.
Why would such a method be caught now with a such weak tool set when every other part of the data extraction was undiscoverable?
The early hint to that was it was not another nation:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07...
""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces."
This seems more like a classic Watergate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... insider walk out than any nation with amazing skills to get into a network that then lacked any ability cover its way out of a US network.
Nsa Whistleblower: Agency Has All Of Clinton’s Deleted Emails (31 Jul 2016)
http://www.breitbart.com/jerus...
".... surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over ..."
" .... directly out of Gamma reporting. "

The ads are no longer up, but: http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

If Breitbart reported it it isn't true.

Or it could be people do not like corporate, mega rich, establishment tools, showing bad behavior and have decided they do not need twitter for anything important or useful. http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/29/bernie-supporters-accuse-twitter-of-censorship-on-behalf-of-hillary/

You forgot about her whole punching down campaign in response, including trying to get her followers to harass some of her harassers (still a violation of Twitter rules, something Milo did not do): http://www.breitbart.com/big-h...

There are assholes online, and if you are a celeb you are probably going to get more than your fair share of them. It sucks, and after she stomped off after her own bullying, she returned.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

How about her mob encouraging comments?

Leslie Jones @Lesdoggg
@whitebecky1776 bitch I want to tell you about your self but I'm gonna let everybody else do it I'm gonna retweet your hate!! Get her!!

That's not just indirectly egging people on, it's literally commanding others to harass someone.

The ads are no longer up, but:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.breitbart.com/londo...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

Note those are from May. More recently:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/...

BBC are racist cunts, and the fuckwits modding me 'troll' can go chew on a brick.

Given the US has a long history with secret informants (Watergate) and the walking out of data vs entering, staying undetected in and moving data from a network only to allow the ip range and tools used to be found?
The interesting part is to listen to the comments.
Julian Assange: 'A lot more material' coming on US elections (July 27, 2016)
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07...
"Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces. But to exclude certain actors is to make it easier to find out who our sources are,"
For any group or nation to have the skills to enter a network, stay in, not be detected, exit with a lot of data and then get sloppy with something as simple as ip ranges, tools used seems strange.
EXCLUSIVE – NSA Whistleblower: Agency Has All of Clinton’s Deleted Emails (31 Jul 2016)
http://www.breitbart.com/jerus...
..."surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community"...

Paper, yes. Vote by mail, no.

Vote by mail is open to fraud. Just look at Austria for an example.

Freedom party secretary Herbert Kickl had spoken out before the vote over the “unusually high number” of postal ballots requested. He warned at the time that “[postal votes] repeatedly show inconsistencies”.

Look at the fawning press in these videos:

In slow motion:
https://youtu.be/YMHOcmDVBP0

Original speed:
https://youtu.be/lJjHTeo6mVw

From another angle (look at the facial reactions of the woman on the left):
https://youtu.be/jtU5nMbEsQ4?t=18s

This is a scandal of epic proportions, particularly since the MSM have kept completely silent about it.

These two articles may shed some light:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/06/law-enforcement-officials-medical-professionals-theres-something-seriously-wrong-hillary-clintons-health/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/13/is-hillary-clinton-fit-for-command/

Look at the fawning press in these videos:

In slow motion:
https://youtu.be/YMHOcmDVBP0

Original speed:
https://youtu.be/lJjHTeo6mVw

From another angle (look at the facial reactions of the woman on the left):
https://youtu.be/jtU5nMbEsQ4?t=18s

This is a scandal of epic proportions, particularly since the MSM have kept completely silent about it.

These two articles may shed some light:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/06/law-enforcement-officials-medical-professionals-theres-something-seriously-wrong-hillary-clintons-health/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/13/is-hillary-clinton-fit-for-command/

YES.

Higher ups at the DNC proposed and approved a plan to spam Craigslist with sexist fake Trump ads. link

The DNC controls the narrative at NBC News, and scolds their anchors whenever the Hillary coverage isn't positive enough. link

The DNC has off the record meetings with multiple media groups - leaks anti-Sanders propaganda to them. link

DNC details their underhanded plans to attack Sanders' Jewish religion. Why they're attacking their own candidate during a primary, you can only come to one conclusion. link

YES.

Higher ups at the DNC proposed and approved a plan to spam Craigslist with sexist fake Trump ads. link

The DNC controls the narrative at NBC News, and scolds their anchors whenever the Hillary coverage isn't positive enough. link

The DNC has off the record meetings with multiple media groups - leaks anti-Sanders propaganda to them. link

DNC details their underhanded plans to attack Sanders' Jewish religion. Why they're attacking their own candidate during a primary, you can only come to one conclusion. link

Ban all of these people from the United States.

Banning these violent haters has already started:

http://media.breitbart.com/med...

You seem to have omitted a few important details, such as Saddam''s funding and support of terrorism, training terrorists, and providing them refuge in Iraq.

Then there is the fact that he kept attacking nations in the region - invaded Iran, invaded and tried to annex Kuwait, attacked Saudi Arabia, attacked Israel. I seem to recall there were "border issues" with some of the other neighbors.

Nor was Iraq particularly stable. There were various rebellions again Saddam, assassination attempts, and various other issues. You may recall that some of these were put down by using chemical weapons against civilian populations.

And Saddam wasn't much of an ally. The US didn't want Iran to beat Iraq and threaten the entire region beyond the danger it already posed. Just think how lovely things would be if Iraq had collapsed and Iran leveraged that into controlling not only Iran's oil, but Iraq, and Saudi Arabia's.

As far as weapons go, Saddam got something like 90% of his weapons from the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact, China, or other communist bloc states. Most of the rest was from France.

We now basically have a war that we can prolong infinitely. As long as we need one, they'll deliver.

So what you are really saying is that Muslims don't have their own values and goals that they pursue independently of what the US or the West does? Really?

Do you know what the general terms are for when one side in a conflict (war) ceases to defend itself? Defeat and surrender.

How do you think you'd get along with your would be overlords?

Liberty Memes ran a Hillary Clinton meme and Facebook took it down and suspended their account.

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/11/facebook-deletes-hillary-clinton-memes/

IMHO the meme was well within normal political satirical norms. I can imagine "memes" that I would agree should be taken down, but this seems like a case of lese-majeste enforcement by Facebook.

I think I could get away with posting a meme like that; I'm not famous or popular. It's only if something starts getting lots of likes and shares that it will get slapped down. You are free to do whatever you want as long as nobody notices. Facebook isn't absolutely chilling speech, but I do think they are managing which things are allowed to trend.

Sigh, I'm still using Facebook. Pretty much everyone I know is on it.

P.S. I just checked and the Liberty Memes account is back up, so the suspension must be over.

He was a fucking congressman in the 90's for god sake

Oh, that's a good point. So was Charles Rangel. Oh, wait, he still is a Congressman, unlike Mr. Duke.

Now, unlike Duke, Representative Rangel's was cited for 11 ethics violations — yet Hillary Clinton not only wouldn't "repudiate" him upon learning of his endorsement, she actively campaigned with him in NYC.

But, at least, for all his faults and crookedness, Charles Rangel does not seem to be a racist personally. Unlike Al Sharpton, for another example — who is as bona-fide anti-Semitic as one can get in America. The riots he encouraged and personally participated in led to an actual killing of at least one man. And yet, Hillary Clinton not only welcomed Al Sharpton's support this year, she gave a speech at his organization.

A well deserved storm because it's not often that presidential candidate defends probably the most famous racist in the country

Maybe, if Trump went to give a speech at a KKK-organized conference — and campaigned together with Mr. Duke on the streets — it would've been comparable... As things are, you can't even see your own hypocrisy jumping in front of you and screaming into your ear...

I seem to remember, Donald Trump being called "racist" over an unsolicited endorsement from a former "KKK"-member. For a while every interviewer kept asking him to "repudiate" it...

Meanwhile the Democratic Party is getting not mere endorsements, but hefty donations from convicted criminals — without anybody asking the inconvenient questions about repudiation. Yeah, they eventually refunded the monies he got for them — but only after the man was convicted — despite "weeks of reports about Hsu's controversial history and murky business practices" and a 15 year-old outstanding warrant for him...

Imagine Trump pointing out, David Duke has never been convicted of any crime — only he did not even know, who the man was... No, he was supposed to know all about David Duke (who, it turns out, quit KKK in 1980).

(Should you choose to reply insisting, Trump really is racist, be sure, your response condemns "Black Lives Matter" as an inherently racist idea, which started with a lie.)

Gamergate didn't actually expose some hidden truth that no one knew about.

Actually it did. See the gamejournopros leak . People thought there was a list, they believed there was collusion going on just like the game mags from the 90's, but had no proof. But the truth came out, and it was the same jackass who created Journolist doing the same thing to the games industry. Then people found out about the number of authors engaging in shady shit by shilling for their friends games, and other authors not disclosing that they were involved in a personal relationship with PR people see PCGamer and the author(Tyler Wilde) who had all of his stories removed about Ubisoft. And the attempted blacklisting/ostracizing of authors/publications who refused to engage in groupthink, and the massive amount of groupthink going on in said organizational group.

They were also the group that got the disclosure rules changed for native advertising/affiliate links/etc. Meaning that shitty, shady and clickbait sites had to be open, clear, with disclosure and no more obfuscated stuff. In the end it shone light on the rest of the garbage in the industry, and did a very good job at costing shitty companies money for being very shitty companies. And continues to do so while pushing back against people who instead of making their own games/characters/stories and let them sink or swim on merit like the rest of the industry. Ensuring that established characters/games/stories aren't rewritten to fit some special snowflakes head cannon. And bringing to light assholes like polygon/kotaku/RPS/etc who are now in the Jack Thompson camp screaming about how we should really censor games because it might hurt someones feelings, and how xyz thing is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

Libertarians are central, not right. They tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

Please consider the Nolan Chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart

libertarians want maximum personal freedom and maximum economic freedom, putting them at the top of the Nolan chart.

libertarians want you to have free speech, take the drugs you choose to take, etc. but also want no minimum wage and minimal taxes. libertarians want you to keep more of your own money, but would reduce or eliminate most government interventions into the economy.

Conservatives by definition are authoritarian and dislike individual liberties IE want to outlaw freedoms like flag burning. They tend to want things to stay the same, to conserve their ways..

I'm a libertarian, not a conservative, but I think you are being unreasonable here. Liberals would hold that it is not free speech to shout offensive things like "Death to niggers!" and liberals are in favor of banning such "hate speech". Conservatives would hold that burning a flag is a similarly offensive form of "speech" that should similarly be prohibited.

Conservatives are on the right of the Nolan Chart. They favor maximum economic freedom but would like restrictions on personal freedom. For example, conservatives most likely would be in favor of keeping prostitution and drug use illegal.

Liberals by definition want to encourage INDIVIDUAL liberties.

That's the old-fashioned definition of "liberal", and it's why libertarians such as me sometimes call ourselves "classical liberals" or "Jeffersonian liberals".

But IMHO modern liberals are very willing to curtail individual liberties. Some liberties they like, such as the freedom to choose what kind of people you like to have sex with. Other liberties they hate, such as the freedom to own and carry weapons, or free speech. (Did you just recoil in shock when I said modern liberals aren't in favor of free speech? I meant what I said. Modern liberals are in favor of free speech, but only the speech they approve of. Modern liberals unabashedly call for criminalization of claiming that climate change isn't real, and modern liberals routinely shout down speakers they don't like. Ask Milo Yiannopoulos whether liberals believe in free speech. IMHO, free speech is Milo giving a talk, and then a liberal getting a turn to talk and rebut what Milo just said; free speech is not shouting down Milo, threatening to punch him in the face, grabbing his microphone, uninviting him, etc.)

Both sides taken to extreme become the same though.

The bottom part of the Nolan Chart is for people who want the government to control all aspects of life. libertarians usually call such people "statists" or "authoritarians".

As left-wing and right-wing people try to make government control more and more, they end up firmly in the "authoritarian" quadrant. As you said, they "become the same" (authoritarian).

P.S. I think a better term for people who want things to stay the same is reactionary, not conservative.

No offense, but Breitbart isn't exactly the most trustworthy of sources. I'm sure that I am not alone in this opinion. I'm completely unable to find anything other than Breitbart listing Rodham as the owner of the company, but I can find multiple sources listing him as a member on the board of advisors.

Breitbart lists Rodham as being on the board too, you lying dick. Let me guess, just running a little interference for Hillary? Don't want people to find out how utterly corrupt Bill and Hillary are?

Gold Mine: Hillary Clinton’s Brother Granted Super-Rare Mining Permit from Haiti After State Dept. Sent Country Billions

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother, Tony Rodham, sat on the board of a self-described mining company that in 2012 received one of only two “gold exploitation permits” from the Haitian government—the first issued in over 50 years.

I don't think it matters how good or golden the source is if you don't read it, don't understand it, or lie about it.

includes the NSA's lawn.

And Hillary Clinton's server. Fuck the emails, she had her Clinton Foundation correspondences on that sucker. She sells states secrets to foreign governments, and ensures arms deals with Saudis, UAE, Qatar, etc. go through so long as huge donations wind up in the Clinton Foundation. Want to sell federal wildlife lands to the Russians for uranium mining after prohibiting US citizens from using the land? Sure! No problem, just make a donation to Hillary Clinton.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/05/gold-mine-hillary-clintons-brother-granted-super-rare-mining-permit-from-haiti-after-state-dept-sent-country-billions/
http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187
http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/01/05/clinton-is-selling-uranium-from-bundy-and-hammond-ranches-to-russians-to-fund-presidential-campaign/

There were tons more juicy details in there that everyone knows about now. So much so that if all of the corruption was released it might cause riots or even a war or two. That means if HRC becomes president, we'll have a sockpuppet president that's being blackmailed by damn near any other nation state. Of course the rest of the world supports her! Her supporters don't care about such things because the Clintons have always been able to be bought off anyway. Easier to bribe them than black mail them I suppose.

The elite's worst enemies are hackers. That's why you won't find them in NSA or FBI. They just purchase 0-day exploits everyone else. If you want to do some real data exfiltration go work for Central Intelligence.

I know that as does probably just about everyone on /. but do you remember how much of a deal the news media made about the terrorists using encrypt during their coverage of the attacks. It now looks like since the initial frenzy is over with that and people have it in their mind that it was because of encryption officials were unable to stop the attacks the media come out stating that they used unencrypted communication but that gets a lot less if any air play or only a brief mention in a small article buried on the inside.

It's almost as if they were all getting their stories from the same source... ;)

I know that as does probably just about everyone on /. but do you remember how much of a deal the news media made about the terrorists using encrypt during their coverage of the attacks. It now looks like since the initial frenzy is over with that and people have it in their mind that it was because of encryption officials were unable to stop the attacks the media come out stating that they used unencrypted communication but that gets a lot less if any air play or only a brief mention in a small article buried on the inside.

Google Play bans Bomb Gaza
http://www.israelnationalnews....
http://www.channel4.com/news/b...

Google bans Whack The Hamas
http://jewishbusinessnews.com/...

Google Play bans Milo Tosser
https://twitter.com/riffraffga...

Google Play permanently bans developer of "Hilliar Clinton" game
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

30 shooting fatalities per day, and 230 non fatal shootings. That seems pretty "routine."

The implication of the original commenter, and your implication, is that guns are causing violence and because so many guns are around violence is routine.

However, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, a significant fraction of murders were criminals murdering other criminals, and a nontrivial fraction of homicides were justifiable homicides by police officers or citzens (i.e. self-defense).

So if you want to persuade me that guns are causing violence, please find some data that leave out the criminals, and see if you can figure out somehow why a guy who would be willing to shoot someone to death wouldn't also knife someone or beat someone to death. (The US not only leads the world in gun homicides but also in homicide by "Fists, Feet, Etc.; see this table.)

So if guns were more expensive and harder to get, there'd be more shootings?

Boy, if you think I actually said anything like this your reading comprehension sucks; and if you think this is a clever reframing of my argument your reasoning skills suck.

Violent criminals, mass murderers, and jihadis all have an unusually high desire to get and use a gun. If you think you can pass any laws that would guarantee these people could never get a gun, then please explain why guns that are not legal in Paris were used in the Paris massacres. For that matter, please explain why crack cocaine can still be found on the streets despite it being completely banned in every state. The people who really want to get guns are going to get them, even if you manage to make it impossible for law-abiding people to get them.

Also: if guns actually caused crime, then places that enacted gun control should have less crime. However, I am by far more likely to be shot in Chicago or Washington, D.C. than in the largest cities in my own state, and that's true even after adjusting for population size.

If you want to convince me that gun control laws can prevent crime, show me a place that was violent, enacted gun control laws, and became peaceful. No such place exists, just as no city with a large population of crack addicts has managed to enact any laws that got rid of the crack.

most shootings don't happen in gun free zones

Here is a report with data that strongly suggests that mass murderers prefer gun-free zones. It's a report that was issued to counter another report that erroneously claimed that most mass murders don't occur in gun-free zones.

leaded gasoline and Reagan's war on impoverished people (what all "wars on poverty" end up as, just Reagan didn't even hide it) lead to peak numbers in the '80s, and so a falling after will happen

Oh, I see. Leaded gasoline, Reagan, and guns cause crime; and the impact of leaded gasoline and Reagan was so profound that the rate of violent crime is falling, even though it is actually increasing as the number of guns increase. It's just that the increase from guns is hidden inside the decrease from leaded gasoline and Reagan.

Well, how could anyone argue with an analysis like that!

but, but, but... BUSH!

Give it a rest. Because of her, American people died for nothing.

Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:

killing gays according to Islamic law should be done "out of compassion"

(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)

FBI Director James Comey echoed President Obama's statement that he does not think the Orlando shooting was a plot directed from outside of the U.S.

At least, he is not blaming an anti-Islam movie by some weirdo...

I know, this stuff is crazy.

The good news is that there’s 50 less pedophiles in this world, because, you know, these homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles.

[...]

But these people all should have been killed, anyway, but they should have been killed through the proper channels, as in they should have been executed by a righteous government that would have tried them, convicted them, and saw them executed.

[...]

That’s what the Bible says, plain and simple.

Oh wait, wrong religion.

Because the crazy imam calling for the killing of gays is totally representative of Islam.

But the crazy pastor calling for the killing of gays is just some nut who has nothing to do with Christianity.

Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:

killing gays according to Islamic law should be done "out of compassion"

(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)

FBI Director James Comey echoed President Obama's statement that he does not think the Orlando shooting was a plot directed from outside of the U.S.

At least, he is not blaming an anti-Islam movie by some weirdo...

I know, this stuff is crazy.

The good news is that there’s 50 less pedophiles in this world, because, you know, these homosexuals are a bunch of disgusting perverts and pedophiles.

[...]

But these people all should have been killed, anyway, but they should have been killed through the proper channels, as in they should have been executed by a righteous government that would have tried them, convicted them, and saw them executed.

[...]

That’s what the Bible says, plain and simple.

Oh wait, wrong religion.

Because the crazy imam calling for the killing of gays is totally representative of Islam.

But the crazy pastor calling for the killing of gays is just some nut who has nothing to do with Christianity.

Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:

killing gays according to Islamic law should be done "out of compassion"

(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)

FBI Director James Comey echoed President Obama's statement that he does not think the Orlando shooting was a plot directed from outside of the U.S.

At least, he is not blaming an anti-Islam movie by some weirdo...

Even without the Internet, this guy could've simply attended a talk by an imam:

killing gays according to Islamic law should be done "out of compassion"

(This sort of bigoted hatred is Ok, but arguing that sayers of such stuff should be carefully watched would get you banned from Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.)

FBI Director James Comey echoed President Obama's statement that he does not think the Orlando shooting was a plot directed from outside of the U.S.

At least, he is not blaming an anti-Islam movie by some weirdo...

I don't know about Florida, but state laws in the US typically prohibit possession of guns wherever alcohol is served...

According to Breitbart:

Per Floridaâ(TM)s concealed carry law, those with a license to carry may not carry their firearms into an establishment that serves alcohol. ...

The state statute that covers the license to carry a weapon, Title XLVI Chapter 790, clearly states that guns are not permitted in bars.

Section (12)(a) tells concealed carry license holders that "A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into: Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose."

So, as with the incident at Luby's Cafeteria in Texas, the hundreds of potential victims in The Pulse were disarmed by state law.

Though it is easy to get a concealed weapon license in Florida, they were in a "gun free zone" and thus not a one of them could fire back at the lone gunman. They had to wait three hours while the swat team got to the site and got its act together, and a substantial number of them were shot - at least 50 fatally.

I know Americans can never contemplate the idea that anybody may have freedom who isn't American let alone have MORE freedom

A few places are comparably free, but the vast majority of the world's population, regretfully, continues to live under regimes considerably more oppressive than the US. And I'm not talking just the usual suspects — like China or Russia — generally respectable places like India can be quite intolerant of unpopular opinions and authoritarian in controlling the information networks. It may seem crazy to Americans, but Germans and Brits, for another example, routinely get arrested simply for saying the wrong things on social media — in the US attempts to criminalize "hate speech" are still duly resisted.

Not to mention certain sunny locales, where one's had can be removed for apostasy.

Reducing America's control over the Internet will — inevitably and by definition — increase the share of control by these governments.

We've seen this before — UN's "Human Rights Council" is a good example of it. All of the things about it, that the so called "Liberals", dismiss as "myths", are actually quite true. It will happen to the Internet's governance — inasmuch as it needs any — as well.

... "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" - Voltaire ...

In Europe and Canada criticizing the Jews is of no consequence. In fact the Jews have become their standard boogieman to be attacked

The killing of Jews is no problem either - in actual fact, part of the European continent becomes hyper-euphoric every time Jews got murdered

But if you ever dare to criticize the moslems, or Islam, you will get into trouble

BIG TROUBLE !

http://www.businessinsider.com...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

https://news.vice.com/article/...

http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/...

http://www.breitbart.com/natio...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/...

http://www.gatestoneinstitute....

But this won't get any press from /. editors... it's much easier to bash Russia.

Correct the Record, a pro-Hillary Clinton political action committee (PAC), is spending over $1 million on online trolls in order to âcorrectâ(TM) Bernie Sanders supporters on social media sites.

The PAC this week launched an initiative called âoeBarrier Breakers 2016,â which is composed of a âoetask forceâ that will debate âBernie Bros,â(TM) presumably supporters of the Senator Sandersâ(TM)s campaign, as referred to by their official press release.

According to Correct the Record, the task force will âoecombat online political harassment,â boasting that it has already âoeaddressed more than 5,000 individuals who have personally attacked Secretary Clinton on Twitter.â

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

ou can't call up the New York Times or Breitbart.com or whichever media outlet you desire and tell them that they have to feature your opinion on the front page. Or on any page.

I am willing to bet you absolutely could call them up and demand whatever you like. They don't have to do what you ask, but no one stops you from calling them and requesting whatever thing you like.

http://www.nytimes.com/content...
http://www.breitbart.com/adver...

I found contact forms available on both pages, though you might get interesting reactions from the advertise with us link at Breitbart.

'You' (the public) are interested in this story. A ""collage professor"" was gunned down? Why were they targetted? A ""White guy"" killed himself after the crime? Why did he do that?

Because he was a Muslim and had a kill list to carry out his Jihad. That's why. Now, you won't find this in the liberal media, but it's the truth. Instead you'll be distracted by shit like TFA instead of the truth. The shooter was also a migrant on a student visa. You're meant to focus on this one kill rather than the fact that police discovered this Jihadi lone wolf killed a woman on his list before this professor was gunned down.

That's the real reason the story is here. We're supposed to believe the guy was just a "crazy white male", when he was a Muslim immigrant with a hit list who had already killed and has now killed again. TFA is disinformation / deflection from the truth / propaganda. The best disinformation has a morsel of truth that baits you into flawed conclusions.

they lack merit for the reasons I already presented

Those "reasons" just being an assertion that all people are equally bad. That requires putting on blinders or pretzel twisting to explain what's going on in Europe due to immigration:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/345...

http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Then can you guarantee Sweden would allow me to become a citizen?

Yes. Go to Sweden. Ditch your passport and any other identification. Claim asylum refugee status and claim to be under 18. Presto, you are in:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Will you purchase my fixed property or guarantee me property in exchange in Sweden?

Put it on the market and you will get market value.

Will you arrange transportation of my portable goods?

One must make some personal sacrifices to avoid their dastardly neighbors and help the poor migrants, right?

But even if they are lions, I'm already beset by tigers and bears. And snakes. Lots of snakes. Why don't you care about the snakes I do have to face right now?

Then provide details. Where do you live? What, exactly, have these horrible people done to you or others?