Slashdot Mirror


Blogger Stabbed To Death After Internet Abuse Seminar (theguardian.com)

A prominent Japanese blogger has been stabbed to death minutes after giving a seminar on how to resolve personal disputes on the internet. The Guardian reports: Media reports said Kenichiro Okamoto, better known by his blogger name Hagex, died on Sunday evening after reportedly being attacked by a man he had argued with online. The suspect, Hidemitsu Matsumoto, allegedly followed Okamoto into the toilets after he had ended his talk at a venue in the south-western city of Fukuoka.

Okamoto was stabbed several times before staggering out of the toilets after his assailant, who fled on a bicycle, according to the Mainichi Shimbun newspaper. Okamoto, who sustained stab wounds to the chest and neck, was taken to hospital where he was confirmed dead. His attacker reportedly handed himself in almost three hours after the attack.

449 comments

  1. Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well then

    1. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You see that Alanis? That's irony.

    2. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wonderful! Have a Cookie !!

    3. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess this guy should not have been giving advice on how to avoid online bullying.

    4. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nom nom nom.

    5. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entire song and not one ironic connection. The only irony is the song title.

    6. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did the people who paid for the seminar get a refund? Obviously the information was faulty!

    7. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like they need "sensible knife laws" in Japan....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Another Gun Worshiper spreads his Gospel.
      Is everything in Your life about Guns?

    9. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward on 06-27-18 8:10 (#56853702)
      And Another Gun Worshiper spreads his Gospel.
      Is everything in Your life about Guns?

      And another coward fails to stand up and be counted, as he lacks strength of conviction. Is everything in your life about cowardice?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      They DO have "sensible knife laws" in Japan. If you're caught walking around with a knife over a certain size (think it was ~2 inches), you're gonna have a bad time.

    11. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      Got momentarily tripped up trying to figure out how there was irony in a guy named "Moto" (source) getting killed in "Fuku" (luck) was ironic.

    12. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      And another coward fails to stand up and be counted, as he lacks strength of conviction. Is everything in your life about cowardice?

      Are you some sort of anti-privacy gun enthusiast? Feel like I'm looking at a unicorn... or an idiot, but I'll just maintain my positive perspective for now.

    13. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sushi chefs better not take their tools home.

      Sounds sensible.

    14. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      They DO have "sensible knife laws" in Japan. If you're caught walking around with a knife over a certain size (think it was ~2 inches), you're gonna have a bad time.

      Wow, really?

      I was just making a joke....

      Glad they got rid of the knife laws in most of the US...I think it used to be something like 3", but now many if not most states don't have restrictions anymore, at least the ones I travel in.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    15. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      I think "caught" is the key word.

      Also I imagine those samurai swords don't instantaneously teleport from the blacksmith into someone's house.

    16. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because signing your post with the name "drinkypoo" is so brave.

    17. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      You can't make this shit up because no one would believe it. I can't stop laughing. I'm sorry that he died...but man these Asians come off with some funny drama.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    18. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by ScepticOne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that Martin Espinoza guy you replied to should stop hiding behind his lack of anonymity!

    19. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      You joke, but you need prefectural permission to own a sword: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    20. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Do you call everyone you disagree with an idiot?

    21. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by SinGunner · · Score: 1

      No, I call people out on their bullshit. Like people whose only contribution to a conversation is an ill-conceived, one-line logical fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    22. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      They actually have: you stab one with the edge of the blade pointing down it is "criminal assault", if the edge points upward it is attempted murder. If the victim is dead, it is murder.
      But I guess, that is not what you meant.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    23. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice copypasta faggot.

    24. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is everything in your life about marx

    25. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point. Alanis might be an ugly, smelly, Dave Grohl lookalike but she was a genius.

    26. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because your two line response with an appeal to authority is so much better. FYI, all logical fallacies are subjective.

    27. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California still has knife restrictions, but at least we don't have silly bans on things like pepper spray as some other states do.

    28. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by another_twilight · · Score: 1

      And so we return to irony

    29. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a racist and clearly not too bright, nonetheless one should note there are plenty of mundane things in America hilarious to the Japanese. Linguistic difference inevitably leads to funny coincidence.

    30. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      I was just asking an honest question. A simple yes or no would have sufficed. Instead you lead in with a Red Herring. I know what fallacies are bro and your attack was an ad hominem.

    31. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      California still has knife restrictions, but at least we don't have silly bans on things like pepper spray as some other states do.

      IANAL, but... California has knife restrictions, but only on concealed blades. When carried openly, there is literally no blade length limit. It is totally legal under state law to openly carry a sword, so long as it's sheathed. (Otherwise, you're brandishing a dangerous weapon...) It is legal to own but not to carry a "switch blade" knife or similar (in CA this includes balisongs) or to sell or offer one to sale to another party. And it's legal to carry a normal folding knife of any size concealed. The only knives you can't carry (or indeed, possess) are knives designed to be misleading (like sword canes) or otherwise designed to evade detection, such as by metal detector. And the only legal knives you can't legally conceal are those with fixed blades and also capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon.

      That's damned close to not even having blade restrictions... however, counties and cities can enact their own ordinances controlling what weapons can legally be carried. Apparently it's illegal to carry a knife over three inches in the city of Los Angeles...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    32. Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      yes, i assume a savvy marketeer will soon come out with an all new unhackable "smart knife" patent ... after which all rocks in the country need to report for immediate lockdown ... bricks probably too, maybe sticks and branches later ... DEFINITELY boards , maybe best to amputate everyone's hands until we can figure out how to install "smart hands" ... that's definitely the ultimate in irony this summer so far

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
  2. He was good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...his opponent's technique was cutting edge.

    1. Re: He was good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And effective!

      The personal dispute was in fact resolved.

    2. Re: He was good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was even resolved offline

    3. Re: He was good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His life line was terminated, slash r slash n

    4. Re:He was good, but... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...his opponent's technique was cutting edge.

      Stop being a hack: any way you slice it, it's too soon for using a sharp wit to mock his death.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    5. Re:He was good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Okay, I get your point. I'll follow it to the hilt.

    6. Re:He was good, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, quit with all the cutting remarks.

  3. take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is exactly why it's so frightening when APK threatens people and demands they post their real name, address, and phone number. You never know who might follow through. Maybe APK isn't being serious, but you can never know until it's too late.

    1. Re: take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he isn't being serious, but his avid imaginary followers could be

    2. Re:take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are Android packages asking you to post your address on the Internet?

    3. Re: take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Malware.
      Spyware.
      Stabware.

    4. Re:take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because he already did so himself some years ago, with entertaining results. (Good thing it was Zontar instead of me, I guess. I might have shown up at his door with a ballbat.)

    5. Re:take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, sir. Would you have a moment today to talk about our Lord and Savior, the hosts file?

    6. Re:take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well he hasn't shown up at my door to get his two in the chest in the past two years, so I don't think he's all that serious.

    7. Re:take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt APK could hurt anyone. He probably can't even get his fat ass out of his chair.

    8. Re:take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.mylife.com/alex-ko...

      "Lawsuit, liens, or bankruptcy on file"

      "Income: $10-$19,999"

      You'd think someone that actually wrote security software would make more money than that. Probably got sued out of existence for lying and defaming people. No wonder his ass is so angry all the time.

    9. Re:take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    10. Re:take note by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I'll just leave this here. No registration required.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:take note by Khyber · · Score: 1

      APK has been at this mental insanity for over 20 years. We've got forum history going back pre-Ars and 3DFiles.

      What's even funnier, his coding is so incompetent that he once relied upon a time zone-based lock to stop people from using a product if their machine wasn't set for a US Time Zone. That's gotta be the shittiest protection I've ever heard of.

      I'll mock him all day publicly and in his face. If his coding is that incompetent, I can guarantee his fighting is just as incompetent, and very likely his aim, so I don't have one fucking thing to fear from his homophobic ass. He's nothing but a 50+ year old man-baby, and a pushover. No wonder momma left and went 1100 miles across the fucking country to get away from him.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    12. Re: take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, I bet it's a winning personality like that which got your pedophile ass banned from so many MUCKs.

    13. Re: take note by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Pedophile? Uh, what? Better have some sort of proof to back up that assertion, Mr. Friend of APK. Doing shit on his behalf also puts him in trouble if able to be proven, and you aren't smart enough to actually hide (as evidenced by the need for you to open your mouth.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re: take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh, someone's an angry little kiddy fiddler isn't he? Alright McQuown, I'll just point out to you and the rest of the world that this isn't the first time you tried to play Internet Tough Guy and lost so very, very hard:

      https://plus.google.com/+AlexM...

      What are you going to do now I wonder, threaten to sue the entire Internet? Or are you just going to find another kiddy butthole to take your "frustrations" out on?

      Here's a little hint "Khyber," nobody's ever been afraid of you. Not your threats, not your rampant pedophilia, nothing. They've only ever considered you an annoyance at best. How does that feel, knowing that at best, you've had about as much impact on anyone's life as any other sex offending furfaggot?

    15. Re: take note by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Not your threats, not your rampant pedophilia, nothing."

      "sex offending"

      Got proof of that, eh, Friend of APK? Note how you're too much of a coward to identify yourself and lend any sort of actual credibility to your shit, let alone post any actual fucking evidence of sexual impropriety (been married for 12 years, good fucking luck.) But that's typical of people like you. And I whipped plenty of ass in prison (that's what RID was all about in Mississippi, extra prison labor and security) and your cowardly ass is no exception, you'd be floored in the first 15 seconds.

      Still waiting on actual evidence, which will guaranteed never come. Oh sure, you'll probably try to make some shit up. I'm ready for it, ya cowardly fuck. :D

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    16. Re: take note by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, that same site says I have a criminal record (I don't) and also lists my income in that range, which is off by about 40k. Yeah, it's a funny way to make fun of someone, but the info on there is frequently garbage

  4. Probably not a good product he was selling... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Or maybe some cutting-edge research on how to improve his product was the problem?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Probably not a good product he was selling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, he just got some strong feedback is all.

  5. I must have read this right when it came out. by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 5, Insightful

    stabbed to death minutes after giving a seminar on how to resolve personal disputes on the internet.

    Not to be snarky here, but my first thought after reading this was "So I guess that's exactly NOT what you should do, huh?" (Sorry to be morbid.)

    At least the guy turned himself in soon afterwards. But he bothered the guy online, even kept making new IDs to hassle the guy after the previous one was disabled.

    What the hell is wrong with people? "Someone's wrong on the internet / in life and it's my duty / job / addiction to permanently correct them? Get over yourself and come up with a better argument. Make them come over to your side instead. Hell, maybe you'll even learn something yourself.

    Winston Churchill: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

    --
    If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    1. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Could just be a twist on the classic stalker, who thinks he didn't get the attention he deserved from his target. Less about the concrete difference of opinions, but the fact that he thought he deserved replies.

    2. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by turp182 · · Score: 1

      What is wrong with people?

      They don't have meaningful goals driving their life decisions, combined with too much free time (that isn't being used towards meaningful goals).

      Rather than invest in relationships with family and friends, they decide to hate.

      Rather than try to make the world a better place by volunteering or something similar, they decide to hate.

      Rather than work on a hobby or project (learn instruments, write stories, even just play games), they decide to hate.

      Rather than worry about their own problems, they decide to hate.

      With over 7 billion people on the Earth, not everyone can have a globally influential existence, but, we can have such for and with those around us.

      But rather than that, they hate.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    3. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2, Funny

      stabbed to death minutes after giving a seminar on how to resolve personal disputes on the internet.

      Not to be snarky here, but my first thought after reading this was "So I guess that's exactly NOT what you should do, huh?" (Sorry to be morbid.) At least the guy turned himself in soon afterwards. But he bothered the guy online, even kept making new IDs to hassle the guy after the previous one was disabled. What the hell is wrong with people? "Someone's wrong on the internet / in life and it's my duty / job / addiction to permanently correct them? Get over yourself and come up with a better argument. Make them come over to your side instead. Hell, maybe you'll even learn something yourself. Winston Churchill: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

      I know, right?

      They need to look at our progressive American way of doing things instead: throw people out of your restaurant, get them fired, and gather in mobs outside their house.

    4. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you feel like everyone is hating on you, pushing and hating them back harder is your only defense. Else you'll begin to think maybe they're right and you enter a very rapid downward spiral. Very few people are able to find a 3rd option. Keep in mind it only has to *feel* like everyone hates you, it doesn't need to be true.

      Perhaps if schools taught useful life skills the world would be a better place. Instead people are expected to pick up social behavior from their peers. Anything passed along like that gets distorted and deteriorates over time.

    5. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      It's not a lone wolf thing, it's a mob problem. Of course most of them don't go that far, but they all see the other members of the group acting a certain way and feel like they can too. The group creates an insulated little world so divorced from reality that occasionally members think that real life violence is the right thing to do.

      A recent example would be the people calling themselves "incels", who occasionally murder people. Not just on the internet either, it happens with offline movements too.

      It's happened over and over and will keep happening. The only real hope is that people become more aware of how these toxic groups form and avoid becoming part of them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those who hate usually get that way from fucked-up relationships with family and friends.

    7. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      When enough people get together to hate they can be globally influential.

    8. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by turp182 · · Score: 1

      True that, I was referring to individuals and personal motivations. These can, and are, certainly influenced by the wider society around us.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    9. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by ScentCone · · Score: 2

      What the hell is wrong with people?

      Knives.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The impersonality of text on a screen may as well be designed to induce hatred.

      Need to move to VR chat asap.

    11. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lizard brain

    12. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What the hell is wrong with people? "Someone's wrong on the internet / in life and it's my duty / job / addiction to permanently correct them? Get over yourself

      Perfect description of the "religious right" who somehow take the name of a Jewish heretic who taught not judging others and viewed political power as a demonic temptation.

    13. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What the hell is wrong with people? "Someone's wrong on the internet / in life and it's my duty / job / addiction to permanently correct them? Get over yourself and come up with a better argument. Make them come over to your side instead. Hell, maybe you'll even learn something yourself.

      Scott Adams has theorized that you simply can't reason with any human being and get them to change their mind on anything because all decisions are made on emotions, not facts. While I don't agree with him and have a differing theory, I can't at this time disprove his theory.

      I have a different theory that I'm not sure I want to fully go into here, but I'll summarize. I suspect that about 10% of the population sees everything in black and white terms. According to my theory, you simply can't reason with such people because they don't see anything in terms of gray and even worse, they don't understand that the way they see the world isn't how the vast majority of humans see it. So when you try to reason with them on anything they have a different opinion on, they think you are crazy because they think you have access to the exact same information they do and see the universe in the exact same way they do so thus you are stubbornly refusing to go along with reality by having a different point of view. They are truly incapable of understanding a different point of view on a subject.

      It could also simply be that the killer is mentally ill and none of the above applies. And in reply to another comment elsewhere, all I can say is killing someone you disagree with and then turning yourself in to the police and is a very Asian and in particular a very Japanese thing to do.

    14. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      As opposed to the right wings more moralistic throw the gays out of my cake shop because, Jesus? As opposed to the stalking and occasional murder of doctors providing care to abortion clinics?

      Fuck the pretend outrage of the right over poor rich girl Trumpian getting kicked out of a middle class dyke haven.

    15. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get over yourself and come up with a better argument. Make them come over to your side instead. Hell, maybe you'll even learn something yourself.

      Or, you could ignore them completely.

    16. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      The incel thing, being pathetically single I'd love to call myself that just from a self deprecating point of view, to poke fun at myself. But of course my fun has to be ruined by a bunch of women hating ass hats that can't understand that they are the source of their problems.

      I mean, come on, involuntarily celibate, that's funny. These people need to lighten up and run with the joke.

    17. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by turp182 · · Score: 1

      I also dropped the price...

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    18. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Get a life, bin that knife!"

    19. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you feel like everyone is hating on you, pushing and hating them back harder is your only defense. Else you'll begin to think maybe they're right and you enter a very rapid downward spiral. Very few people are able to find a 3rd option. Keep in mind it only has to *feel* like everyone hates you, it doesn't need to be true.

      Errr no. Your argument assume that you will accept what others' opinion (hate) on you. That's wrong. Your solution is to fight back harder is also wrong because it is an extreme solution. Why? You just need to meet the right person who will not go down with your fight, and it could easily end up either you or the other is dead.

      No, you do NOT need to accept others' hate. You need to learn who you are, but not from those who destructively comment on you. You need to learn from constructive comment about yourself. Of course, some has higher tolerant than others, but that doesn't mean you have to accept everything others said about you. Also, some people can't change themselves because they are too much into themselves. I feel bad for these people but I would avoid them.

      It is not easy to teach someone about life. They are who they are. If they want to change, they should be able to. Though, most people don't want to change who they are. It is now you who try to avoid rather than confront them face to face. Confrontation often times doesn't solve the problem but rather creates more. Try to reason with the other if a confrontation occurs. If the other doesn't want to reason with you, then you shut down your side and move on...

    20. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I can strangle you?

    21. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by TWX · · Score: 1

      stabbed to death minutes after giving a seminar on how to resolve personal disputes on the internet.

      Not to be snarky here, but my first thought after reading this was "So I guess that's exactly NOT what you should do, huh?" (Sorry to be morbid.)

      At least the guy turned himself in soon afterwards. But he bothered the guy online, even kept making new IDs to hassle the guy after the previous one was disabled.

      What the hell is wrong with people? "Someone's wrong on the internet / in life and it's my duty / job / addiction to permanently correct them? Get over yourself and come up with a better argument. Make them come over to your side instead.
        Hell, maybe you'll even learn something yourself.

      Winston Churchill: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

      I hope that the attendees of the lecture got their money back, as clearly the presenter's technique doesn't work.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    22. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Freedom to be an asshole doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of being an asshole.

    23. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Some people want to be incorrect, but they still believe they're right. These people have emotional baggage that it's not your job or competency to fix and your time and attention can do far more good with the other seven billion people.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    24. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by null+etc. · · Score: 1

      Not to be snarky here, but my first thought after reading this was "So I guess that's exactly NOT what you should do, huh?"

      It's like the George Costanza method of dispute resolution.

    25. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      You might find the concept of the Philosophical Zombie interesting, if you're not already aware of it.

      Robert J. Sawyer has an excellent piece of fiction exploring the idea called Quantum Night.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    26. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The only real hope is that people become more aware of how these toxic groups form and avoid becoming part of them.

      Is it? It seems that more of a spotlight you cast on those groups, the more emboldened they are, the more they feel like they're the victims ("the fake news mainstream media is slandering us!"), and become more entrenched in their beliefs.

      It's basically the Streissand effect.

      Also, how do you avoid from "becoming part of" incel? It's not like you're entitled to women sleeping with you (believe you are would make you one of those toxic groups)

    27. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Progressives have already moved on to politically motivated murder as a feel good tactic in the US. James Hodgkinson tried to kill scores of Republican congressmen. He's still an outlier but Max-Scene Waters has encouraged this behavior now. I think it's only a matter of time before an attempt will be made on the life of a member of Trump's administration. What happens after that has me worried.

    28. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with people?

      They don't have meaningful goals driving their life decisions, combined with too much free time (that isn't being used towards meaningful goals).

      Rather than invest in relationships with family and friends, they decide to hate.

      Rather than try to make the world a better place by volunteering or something similar, they decide to hate.

      Rather than work on a hobby or project (learn instruments, write stories, even just play games), they decide to hate.

      Rather than worry about their own problems, they decide to hate.

      With over 7 billion people on the Earth, not everyone can have a globally influential existence, but, we can have such for and with those around us.

      But rather than that, they hate.

      Yes, but enough about the president already.

    29. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, in a decade or three when we get actual full body suit with force feedback.

    30. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because someone says something you disagree with or find offensive, does not give you the right to be violent and otherwise violate the law.

      I do think that the current manufactured outrage and mob swarms will end up backfiring in the end. The consequences may be unintended.

    31. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> But he bothered the guy online, even kept making new IDs to hassle the guy after the previous one was disabled.

      Jesus christ I am going to follow you into the shitter and stab you if you keep using ambigous pronouns. 'He'? Which fucking 'he' made new IDs?

    32. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by BronsCon · · Score: 0

      Wait, I thought guns were what is wrong with people. Shit, I just can't keep up anymore; did we solve that "problem" already?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    33. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Then you never learn.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    34. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I've heard people whine when I've blocked them or people they agree with.

      Really though, if you feel someone argues in bad faith (putting words in your mouth, lying, etc), or has an opinion you find so genuinely objectionable you'll never find common ground ("there's nothing wrong with taking people's kids from them and torturing them"), then what the hell is wrong with blocking?

      Beats stabbing. Every "social media system" (be it Facespace or a blog that's enabled comments) should make it easier to block people you don't want to deal with.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    35. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      throw people out of your restaurant, get them fired, and gather in mobs outside their house.

      That is the least that should be done to Nazis. The shoe fits just fine; this administration is well into the middle stages of a typical program of genocide.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a different theory that I'm not sure I want to fully go into here, but I'll summarize. I suspect that about 10% of the population sees everything in black and white terms.

      In a more or less recent conversation here about bad cops, someone brought up a possibly apocryphal but plausible-sounding anecdote about a cop suggesting that there's about 15% good cops, 15% bad cops, and the rest are followers who will just go along with whatever is happening. We could argue about the percentages (both in policing, and the general population) but I think a similar effect is at work in simply thinking. About 15% of people think, about 15% of people refuse to think, and the rest just go along with whatever is happening around them. If the people around them are thinking, they will give it a go. If the people around them aren't, they won't.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    37. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They need to look at our progressive American way of doing things instead: throw people out of your restaurant, get them fired, and gather in mobs outside their house.

      Or the conservative American way of doing things, throw people out of your bakery or restaurant, get them fired, gather in mobs outside their house, shoot them at church, firebomb their business....

    38. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      You realize multiple doctors who provide abortions have been murdered, right?
      That a church was recently shot up?
      That the Secret Service had to investigate a lot more threats from 2008 to 2016 than previous administrations?

      If you are just now fearing political violence in the US, your ideological agreement has provided excellent blinders.

    39. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every "social media system" (be it Facespace or a blog that's enabled comments) should make it easier to block people you don't want to deal with.

      Doesn't solve the problem. It just introduces a new level/vector/topic for people to argue and hate each other over: who has just blocked whom. And once you've blocked someone, you can't hear them nor can they hear you, so there's less dialogue to understand each other.

      Instead, people congregate into their own echo chambers, telling themselves and each other reinforced stereotypes and prejudices about other groups.

      Of course this tribalism goes on without stronger blocking mechanisms. Having strong blocking makes it worse though.

    40. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone call Alanas Morrisette

    41. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, us Nazi's are really gearing it up now. Please report to the closest MAGA center for your "mandatory entertainment"

      The new definition of genocide: To send people back to their home country who were not allowed to be here instead of letting them in, costing us billions in fraud for education, medical,and benefits.

    42. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparing this administration to Nazi's is effectively holocaust denial.

    43. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Japan so safe!

      But outlawing guns means no more murder!

      I bet the weeaboo's are confused as hell... I mean it wasn't a Samuri or Nija or half naked anime girl.. just a dude killin another dude... just like in the good ole USA

    44. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Comparing this administration to Nazi's is effectively holocaust denial.

      Comparing that comparison to holocaust denial is sucking this administration off with vigor. You'll refuse to see what's happening right up until you're toting a rifle in South America and murdering people for being brown.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    45. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Believing that someone is an asshole gets you nothing. You have no right to harass someone, even someone you think is an asshole.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    46. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by lgw · · Score: 0

      That is the least that should be done to Nazis.

      "That is the least that should be done to Jews."

      "That is the least that should be done to Kulaks."

      "That is the least that should be done to counter-revolutionaries."

      You are embodying the path that leads to genocide. You are attempting to "unpeople" those who you don't like, and calling for violence against them. Stop doing that - it killed nearly 200 million people in the 20th century.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    47. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm a colored person and I'm still waiting for the *real* Nazi-style concentration camps to appear. (The ones where the goal is to murder the people in the facilities as Nazi Germany did to the Jews. The detention centers in the U.S. for illegal immigrants, in all their years of operation dating before Trump ever even announced his candidacy for president, have never murdered anyone.) I was told by people like you before Trump took office that minorities would all be put into concentration camps. We're nearly two years into Trump's presidency and it hasn't happened yet. I'm still not worried about being sent to a concentration camp although I do admit that I am a bit concerned that someone like you could try to take matters into his own hands and try to do me harm.

      But being murdered by the Trump administration for not being the right color? I have no fears of that occurring and don't see any reason to be concerned. What happens in two years, after Trump's presidency is over (assuming he does not run for and win a second term), if there are still no concentration camps? What are you going to say then?

      You're urging escalation of the situation by Democrats and whoever else is anti-Trump. That is, you're calling for violence despite the fact that the vast majority (99+%) of Trump supporters and Trump tolerators have committed absolutely zero acts of violence and have not attempted any of the intimidation tactics used by the Democrats. Show me the vast number of news articles that report on violence perpetrated by the current administrator or its supporters against minorities. Being that the media is largely on your side, you should be able to produce plenty of results without any work. "Accredited" news sources only, please. The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, the Huffington Post, etc. should all provide ample material for you to unearth. Also, news articles, not opinion pieces.

    48. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      You are embodying the path that leads to genocide. You are attempting to "unpeople" those who you don't like,

      Point to the place where I did that.

      and calling for violence against them.

      I didn't do that either, although there is precisely one time at which it is warranted to use violence, and that is to prevent violence. The Trump administration is doing violence, and these people are willfully aiding and abetting that violence.

      Using violence to stop Nazis is one of the most warranted cases that there ever has been, to the point that it is literally the canonical example in the western world.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    49. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it does. some dumbass yank will even try to tell you its enshrined in some document as a right.

    50. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 0

      I'm a colored person

      You're an anonymous coward. ACs don't have any color but yellow, and no, that's not an anti-Chinese slur.

      and I'm still waiting for the *real* Nazi-style concentration camps to appear. (The ones where the goal is to murder the people in the facilities as Nazi Germany did to the Jews.

      Sending them back to someplace they're going to be killed is murder by proxy.

      You can stop waiting.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    51. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by lgw · · Score: 1

      then what the hell is wrong with blocking?

      If people sincerely believe things you think are dangerous or evil (as opposed to actual trolling: pretending such beliefs to get a rise out of you), perhaps you have a moral duty to attempt to convince them otherwise.

      Words and violence are our only choices for dispute resolution. I prefer words.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    52. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Telling someone to leave your place of business, calling on their employer to fire them, nonviolently protesting their actions, etc., do not constitute any form of illegal harassment. Sucks to be an asshole.

    53. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or the conservative American way of doing things, throw people out of your bakery or restaurant, get them fired, gather in mobs outside their house, shoot them at church, firebomb their business....

      You forgot enslave them for 246 years; drag them behind first horses, then wagons, and finally pick-em-up trucks; burn crosses on their lawns and burn their churches for good measure; hang them by the neck for any crime at all, including imagined ones; massacre natives, and students, and veterans, and asians, and brown people... To be fair, I suppose we could just go on forever.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by lgw · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Point to the place where I did that.

      *Points*

      Using violence to stop Nazis is one of the most warranted cases that there ever has been

      There aren't so many Nazis still running around. They've mostly aged out. So you're not talking about Nazis, you're talking about "people who I don't like, and so label Nazis so I'm free to advocate violence against them". Don't do that.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    55. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > When you feel like everyone is hating on you, pushing and hating them back harder is your only defense.

      Bullshit.

      A weak man fights back. An enlightened man surrenders to the wisdom of: "What you resist, persists." i.e. There are bigger Wars to worry about then one Battle.

      The ONLY way to overcome Hate is with Forgiveness -- that is, repaying Evil with Good. It is (partially) what makes us humane -- something that we STILL need to learn from the animals: Unconditional Love.

      Violence is NEVER the solution. It is PRECISELY the problem -- but keep justifying that excuse that the Iron Rule is "better" then the Golden Rule.

      --
      Atheist, noun, a spiritual blind man arguing that color doesn't exist.
      Theist, noun, a spiritual monochromactic man arguing that ONLY his color exists.

    56. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get with the times. Now it's potato peelers. http://dailycaller.com/2018/05...

    57. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      It's now at https://www.ebay.com/itm/28302.... You should update your sig. Can you ship to Sweden?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    58. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Pence, of all people, should support Sanders being denied service.

      I do not agree with either action however the irony is fantastic.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    59. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      That's a view few people hold at my age (I'm in my 40s), after a while people's world view becomes difficult to change - they might "find religion", but it's not going to come out of a polite... or not so polite... discussion, especially with an idiot like me who gets angry about it.

      I don't doubt there are some issues that people are closer to each other than they think, even if they call the other side "evil" - gun rights would be a classic case - but, on other issues, like the one I gave, I just don't see it, you have to have a particular world view to feel that way, I could be patronizing and suggest the only way some might change their minds would be to become parents, but that's really patronizing to non-parents who are on the same side I am about it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    60. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There aren't so many Nazis still running around. They've mostly aged out. So you're not talking about Nazis, you're talking about "people who I don't like, and so label Nazis so I'm free to advocate violence against them". Don't do that.

      He's not. He's talking about people marching around with RaHoWa banners and torches, chanting "Blood and soil! Blood and Soil!"

      And like most intelligent people, he's decided that people who look like Nazis, act like Nazis, and talk like Nazis are, for all practical purposes, Nazis.

      You are either a sympathiser or incredibly naïve to interpret it otherwise. Which is it?

      (That's a rhetorical question; it's pretty obvious from your sig that you are in fact an apologist for such types.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    61. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure you're a liar.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    62. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by denzacar · · Score: 1

      It's happened over and over and will keep happening. The only real hope is that people become more aware of how these toxic groups form and avoid becoming part of them.

      Oh come on...

      Let's not pretend that Big Brother-like surveillance and punishment would not fix that.
      Along with other things. Some of which may not need fixing. Like freedom of speech.

      And let's not pretend that some people wouldn't mind those other things being collateral "fixes".
      After all, we MUST do SOMETHING before it's TOO LATE. Think of the children!

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    63. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a load of horseshit. Exactly the kind of thing a Nazi would claim about those he doesn't agree with / like.

    64. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      What the hell is wrong with people? "Someone's wrong on the internet / in life and it's my duty / job / addiction to permanently correct them? Get over yourself and come up with a better argument. Make them come over to your side instead. Hell, maybe you'll even learn something yourself.

      Winston Churchill: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

      You should've seen the s#!tstorm EA created when they announced their latest Call of Duty or whatever was going to feature... female avatars. The internet practically blew up with people arguing right or wrong on that. (And the rest of the world goes "meh, so what?"). But the rhetoric among gamers over an addition was just amazing. It's optional folks, if you don't want it, don't pick it. So what if there are more avatars to choose from.

      Heck, an indie game I played asked a simple question - do you want to be referred to as a "he", "she" or "it". The number of people who took offense at even being given the option was amazing.

      Then again, religion must be some sacred cow. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled law societies are not required to certify a law school at a conservative university that requires all its students to not engage in homosexual behavior, only marry the opposite sex, etc. The conservative press called it an assault on the freedom of religion by the LGBTQ community (who saw it as an assault on their basic right to equality). Not surprisingly, a few days later, a rainbow crosswalk was defaced with white paint.

      Too many idiots have really lost a grip on life.

    65. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and these people (feminists for example) are always so fair to determine who deserves to be lynched because they are "an asshole". And when called out on it later when the dust has settled and EVERYBODY realized they overreacted they hand wave it away because the intentions were "good".

    66. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I misunderstood you: "there's nothing wrong with taking people's kids from them and torturing them" is a classic straw man argument, so i assumed you were using it as an example of insincere trolling.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    67. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is big government to tell a small business owner who they can or can't throw out?

    68. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      That's a lot of feel good bullshit. Go give ISIS some love. You can report back on how that went, assuming they didn't cut your head off first.

    69. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sending them back to someplace they're going to be killed is murder by proxy.

      You really believe that don't you. You'll eat anything I suppose.

    70. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is hardly anything so benign that someone out there won't think you're basically Hitler for believing it.
      There is no moral duty to convince VHEMT folks that I prefer myself and my descendants continue surviving.
      This is the same point stated again: you have no common ground with some people.

    71. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Like the people who get extremely angry when they see a gold dress and others see a black dress. An utterly unimportant issue that got some people bothered.

      Turning yourself into the police is sort of a way to say "I was totally justified in my actions" or "I don't feel guilty".

    72. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do people seriously construct these logical fallacies, and then believe them? That is insane.

    73. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a view few people hold at my age (I'm in my 40s)

      Nah, many people your age (and other ages) voted for Trump, which is evidence that they favor words over violence. If it was violence they wanted, Mueller and co would have met some unfortunate "accident" long ago instead of being the one hope Democrats are holding onto for a shorter Trump presidency (while anything can happen between now and 2020, right now the Democrats seem to have yet to regroup from defeat, so it remains to be seen if they can muster an adequate alternative to Republicans)

    74. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      There's nothing violent or illegal about throwing people out of a restaurant you own, bringing detrimental conduct to the attention of employers, or protests on public property.

    75. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      You don't watch the news much do you?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    76. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      You have no requirement to serve someone who does things you don't like, nor do employers have any requirement to maintain the employment of individuals whose conduct causes their businesses harm, nor do voters have any requirement to not vocally demonstrate against elected officials who they feel are enacting policies that are harmful to the country.

    77. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You went a little too far there Ivan, the idiocy here is beyond believable. Better luck next time!

    78. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you must realize the current situation that Progressive/Democrat/Socialists are stoking the violence. I'm sure the Secret Service threat count for 2016-2024 will far surpass the Obama years. We have big mouth celebrities with big out-sized opinions openly wishing death to Trump. I don't recall much of that during Obama's time. I don't remember congress-critters advocating for mob violence against Democrats either.

      But I guess if you want to go back into history we can. Lets start with the Weather Underground. You know the group with Bill Ayers that thought 30 million problematic US Citizens would need to be killed in order to achieve a communist utopia. Or how about the Jim Crow years where Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep laws from being passed to halt discrimination against blacks. Or how about the KKK being formed by Democrats in order to intimidate blacks, by murdering them sometimes, to keep them from voting. And my favorite, eugenics - the Progressive plan of the 1920's that just wanted to exterminate blacks and other so called feeble-minded races by forcibly sterilizing them.

      Right wing violence certainly does happen. The OKC bombing comes to mind. It's just that I'm more worried about the left wing right now.

    79. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Make them come over to your side instead.

      You must be new here. Or on the blue team. The blue team is always wrong.

    80. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      We have big mouth celebrities with big out-sized opinions openly wishing death to Trump. I don't recall much of that during Obama's time.

      Again, your ideological agreement provides excellent blinders.

      Big mouth celebrities not only openly wished death to Obama. For example, Hannity, O'Riley and Ted Nugent on multiple occasions. Nugent was invited to the White House by Trump, demonstrating just how unacceptable these threats are.

      I don't remember congress-critters advocating for mob violence against Democrats either.

      Again, your ideological agreement provides excellent blinders.

      Steve King is the most vocal here, with many members of the "Freedom Caucus" also advocating violence.

      Oh, there's also this guy named Trump who has encouraged his rally attendees to beat protesters. But hey, he's not important or anything...

      But I guess if you want to go back into history we can

      ...and make sure we jump over all those inconvenient years....

      Lets start with the Weather Underground. You know the group with Bill Ayers that thought 30 million problematic US Citizens would need to be killed in order to achieve a communist utopia.

      And they were treated as an outrageous fringe group by the liberals of the time. Y'all are watching Fox News 24/7 right now.

      Or how about the Jim Crow years where Democrats fought tooth and nail to keep laws from being passed to halt discrimination against blacks. Or how about the KKK being formed by Democrats in order to intimidate blacks

      So it turns out political parties are not required to always hold the same ideological position. Shocking, it's true!! There even used to be a time when Republicans were so hostile to "State's Rights" that they refused to let those states leave the Union and fought a war to keep them!!!

      More recently, you'll find there was this thing called the "Southern Realignment". The South was so pissed off about the civil war that they refused to vote for anyone from the Republican party, regardless of that person's politics. The result was the Dixiecrats - Democrats in name, but significantly different ideology from the rest of the party.

      Then 1964 happened.

      Democrats passed and LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. And the racists abandoned the Democratic party (or a very small number woke up to the fact that they were wrong). And suddenly Republicans started winning all across the South. So much so that Nixon had this fantastic idea called the "Southern Strategy" of using racist dogwhistles to help his campaign. And he won big. So Reagan came along and copied him - it's not like "Welfare Queens" were ever portrayed as white, despite far more whites being on welfare than blacks. Cocaine was used by whites, "crack" was used by blacks because of price. Guess which one was treated as the terrible, evil, monster-creating drug that would be the downfall of civilization if we did not destroy?

      So no, you do not actually give a shit about political violence. You're quite happy at political violence against those you ideologically disagree with, as demonstrated by your inability to remember it and your dishonest attempt to pretend the political parties have not changed since the 1860s.

      You're "worried" now because the political violence might be aimed at you this time.

      Well, buttercup, perhaps if you gave enough of a damn to take off your ideological blinders before now, we might not be in this place.

      But we both know that will not happen. Instead, you'll turn on the TV and watch guy who openly called for my death because I don't think 4-year-olds belong in cages. Or even better, you'll vote for him.

    81. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Einzelhaft · · Score: 1

      Is Holocaust Denial a thought-crime? Some hold that opinion. While others may disagree, there is room for reasoned debate, or should be.

    82. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by lgw · · Score: 1

      Oh, you're talking about the nonsense-of-the-week. The "torture" part was so hyperbolic that you lost me. As an aside, are you OK in general with CPS intervening if parents involve their kids in a serious crime? What, in general, should the state do with children when the parents are arrested and jailed? Doesn't seem like there are easy or pleasant answers to be had there, unless there are extended family nearby willing to foster the kids.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    83. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why did some asshole mod this "troll"?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    84. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Depends on jurisdictation.
      You can not throw out random people in my country, you need a solid reason.
      After all you offer a service/contract and by sitting down the "guest" agrees to follow the contract, and that means: you have a contract.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    85. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      You aren't an American, then. Here, business owners have the right to refuse servicen so long as they're not doing so to discriminate based on protected classes like religion, sex, race, or national origin. Someone is making your employees and other customers uncomfortable? That's enough.

    86. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      Can you ship to Sweden?

      Funniest thing I read all day. Thanks for that.

    87. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Keep justifying using violence to overcome hate. Someday when you grow up kid you will realize it doesn't work.

    88. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to look at our progressive American way of doing things instead: throw people out of your restaurant, get them fired, and gather in mobs outside their house.

      Works better than killing them, wouldn't you say?

    89. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given CPS's record of failing to track children, I'd point out that they are dangerous.

    90. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have to let all of Mexico in to the US, it's the only humanitarian option!

    91. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scott Adams is clearly wrong because change their minds all the time. And your theory is fucking retarded... where does 10% come from? Seems like a figure you just pulled out of your ass. More importantly, you don't have enough information about the assailant to make any kind of reasonable assessment, so how about you shut your fucking mouth because everything you've said is rubbish and you aren't any kind of intellectual or expert so no one should care about your stupid fucking "theory". God damn fucking self-important fucking retard.

    92. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I have to listen to your bullshit, why don't you have to listen to mine?

    93. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not gonna take advice on how to love my enemies and not fight them from someone who voluntarily chooses the name UnknownSoldier. Like every other conservative(yeah you are) on here, you're a goddamned hypocrite.

    94. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right wing violence certainly does happen. The OKC bombing comes to mind. It's just that I'm more worried about the left wing right now.

      You mean supportive. You joined the crowd that are threatening a restaurant for not wanting to serve a politician.

      Enjoy the consequences of your bias.

    95. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you ARE a furry?

    96. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Violence has solved a lot of problems in history.

      Truisms are useless.

      'All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.' Do you know who said that? (He knew.)

      If violence hasn't solved your problem, you just haven't used enough of it. Might not be an optimal solution, but the problem will be solved (e.g. urban blight in 'A Boy and His Dog').

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    97. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You may be to young to remember signs like this.

      You're defending people that have made it very clear that this is the sort of thing they want to bring back.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    98. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      I'm a colored person

      No you're not, your a troll trotting out the same old trolly statements week in week out. It's all getting very boring...

    99. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by ayesnymous · · Score: 1
      > Not to be snarky here, but my first thought after reading this was "So I guess that's exactly NOT what you should do, huh?" (Sorry to be morbid.)

      No, he was stabbed in real life, not on the internet.

    100. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      It could also simply be that the killer is mentally ill and none of the above applies.

      Not could, is.
      The graph of human behaviour is not a straight line, so what triggers on person doesn't necessarily trigger another. To plan out an action like this and also pull it off puts you firmly in the nuts end of the spectrum.

    101. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's not. He's talking about people marching around with RaHoWa banners and torches, chanting "Blood and soil! Blood and Soil!"

      Huh? From what I see he's talking about the current US administration, at least according to this post: "That is the least that should be done to Nazis. The shoe fits just fine; this administration is well into the middle stages of a typical program of genocide."

    102. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      A liar too. She wasn't trans, that was just a transphobic rumour/lie that emerged from 4chan in the aftermath. The same 4chan that idolized her.

      Ironic how they complain about "people you don't like" being labelled Nazis, after labelling people they don't like as SJWs.

      There is a lot to unpack from that signature.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    103. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by darth.hunterix · · Score: 1

      The only people capable of following your advice are those protected by the umbrella of superior firepower of police and military. When you repay evil with good from the position of weakness you will end up dead or enslaved. When you do so from position of strength, you can change the world for the better. In modern world this strength comes from the government, but it changes nothing.

      Alternatively: a weak man fights back, because only weak men are attacked. Strong people have nothing to worry about and do what you suggest.

      --
      What is best in life? Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper.
    104. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by skovnymfe · · Score: 1

      Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... applies to more than just technology adaptation? Or perhaps it's the other way around, the diffusion happens the way it does because we are 2.5% thinkers, 13.5% followers, 34% joiners, 34% hey-don't-leave-me-behind'ers and 16% fuck you, I've got my own opinion regardless if it's wrong.

    105. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ironic how they complain about "people you don't like" being labelled Nazis, after labelling people they don't like as SJWs.

      Nazis were members of a specific political organisation in the 1930s and 1940s. Labelling people as Nazis to associate them with the actions of that political organisation then using that artificial association to justify calls of violence against them is reprehensible.

      SJWs are people that identify or are identified as supporting emotionally based racism and sexism and refuse to listen to logic, reason or facts. Despite this there is not a general call for violence against them.

      So sorry, I'm not seeing the irony here. Seems like two very different situations and scenarios.

    106. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets start with the Weather Underground. You know the group with Bill Ayers that thought 30 million problematic US Citizens would need to be killed in order to achieve a communist utopia.

      And they were treated as an outrageous fringe group by the liberals of the time. Y'all are watching Fox News 24/7 right now.

      And Bill Ayers is now a retired professor held in high esteem by the academy. Doesn't sound like he was ever treated too fringy to me. Nice try Progressive.

    107. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Is Holocaust Denial a thought-crime? Some hold that opinion. While others may disagree, there is room for reasoned debate, or should be.

      Thought crime? Not in the USA. Severely fucking stupid, and a sign that someone is both a moron and a racist? Absofuckinglutely.

      While others may disagree, there is room for reasoned debate, or should be.

      There is no possibility of reasoned debate with someone willfully stupid enough to believe that the holocaust did not exist. There is ample evidence, and anyone who willfully ignores it can only be doing it for racist reasons.

      "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture."

      Thomas Paine

      The people who deny the holocaust are racists (who hold humanity in contempt) who are willfully ignorant (renounced the use and authority of reason) and therefore it is literally impossible to have a meaningful argument with them. These people are also usually corporatists, so why won't they at least listen to IBM? Granted, IBM absolves themselves of responsibility for making the concentration camp management machines, but at least they acknowledge that it happened. (They also received the payments for the service contract directly to their HQ in Armonk, NY.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    108. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How do people seriously construct these logical fallacies, and then believe them? That is insane.

      I presume that you were talking about how sending them back to the country where they'll be murdered is murder by proxy, but you were too stupid and/or lazy to make that clear so I'm just guessing. The simple fact is that the USA has shit all over South America in a variety of ways. The primary driver of criminal activity down there is failed US drug policy. But we've also done all kinds of other stuff on that continent in general like arming various groups, supporting various coups, picking winners and losers through government aid and investment, and sometimes even actual invasions (e.g. Panama). The actual truth is that much as Europe raped Africa, the USA has raped South America.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    109. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I repeat what the other AC said: you're constructing logical fallacies, and that's insane.

      you were too stupid and/or lazy to make that cleare

      It's only appropriate, as you were too stupid and/or lazy to explain your claim about murder by proxy in the first place.

      The simple fact is that the USA has shit all over South America in a variety of ways

      So? Stating simple facts don't change your logical fallacy. it's a logical leap to say that sending them back is equal to murder by proxy. ...especially facts that hint towards to idea that the USA is not the place they should want to go. I mean...

      The actual truth is that much as Europe raped Africa, the USA has raped South America.

      ...if the USA is the country that raped South America, why the hell would it be a good idea for South Americans to come live in the USA? That's like telling a rape victim to go live with the one who raped them. He's totally changed. He'll make it up to you. It'll be different this time, honest!

    110. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      ...if the USA is the country that raped South America, why the hell would it be a good idea for South Americans to come live in the USA? That's like telling a rape victim to go live with the one who raped them. He's totally changed. He'll make it up to you. It'll be different this time, honest!

      Because they have nowhere better to go, because we've shit on all the neighboring countries, too. The only other place they can walk to is Canada, and they have to get through the USA to get there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    111. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      So what are we supposed to call people who display Nazi symbols, chant Nazi slogans, support Nazi ideology, lionize Nazi leaders and and call themselves Nazis?

      By the way, according to your definition of SJW, she wasn't one. Her concerns were animal welfare and degeneracy, an odd mix of progressive and alt-right.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    112. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Shrug, I'm mostly hazy on the definition of 'SJW' as I try not to use the term.

      If nothing else, 'cunt' is usually an adequate replacement. Interestingly it's also a useful answer to your question.

    113. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they have nowhere better to go

      How so? You're making it sound like every South American country is a Venezuela, but last I heard, they aren't.

      Glancing at various news sources, I get stories from Brazil getting a wind power contract with China, to Argentina close to legalizing abortion. Those sound quite progressive, opposite (read: better) than what a "Nazi" regime in the US would want to do.

      (none of this change the fact it's still a logical fallacy to jump from refusing them to murder by proxy btw)

    114. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Seems odd that you want to avoid calling people Nazis when they are very clearly proud Nazis. Can you explain why that is? Surely it can't just be that you want the word Nazi to only refer to the movement of the 30s/40s, and if it then at least you can see that calling them cunts is somewhat non-specific and doesn't really help us talk about that particular group.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    115. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I'm avoiding getting drawn into a conversation about the 200 people that belong to the American Nazi Party when the term 'Nazi' was clearly used in this conversation to describe the current US Government.

      Changing the subject of a conversation midway and pretending everything previously said is about something entirely different is disingenuous at best. I'm going to be really nice and not state what it more likely is.

    116. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It seemed pretty clear he was talking about actual Nazis... Being a member of the American Nazi Party isn't a requirement, and in fact many of them are not because of political divisions.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    117. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      It seemed pretty clear he was talking about actual Nazis

      Well, let's just check that shall we.

      there is precisely one time at which it is warranted to use violence, and that is to prevent violence. The Trump administration is doing violence, and these people are willfully aiding and abetting that violence.

      Using violence to stop Nazis is one of the most warranted cases that there ever has been

      Nope, no mention of actual nazis there at all. Maybe I should go further back in the conversation.

      That is the least that should be done to Nazis. The shoe fits just fine; this administration is well into the middle stages of a typical program of genocide.

      Nope, still no actual nazis.

      So I guess you need to go back to school and learn how to read, and also stop posting utter fucking shit on the internet trying to suggest that some cunt pretending the US Government is committing genocide (while killing nobody) is referring to members of the National Socialist party in Germany (several of whom as it happens didn't support or commit genocide either - heard of Oskar Schindler by any chance?)

      So do I want to avoid calling Trump's administration Nazis? Yeah. I find it unhelpful, idiotic, counter-productive and also intellectually lazy, not to mention dishonest, inflammatory and indefensible. What's your excuse?

    118. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Someone is making your employees and other customers uncomfortable? That's enough.
      Of course that is enough. But it needs to be "obvious" as in "somewhat objective".

      You can not point someone out because you don't like his nose.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    119. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Yet I suspect that you are perfectly willing to go along with calling people who display the hammer & sickle and go around quoting Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin "Communists", in spite of the fact that they weren't yet born when Stalin (or even Mao) was still alive.

      Your Opposite-Land characterisation of social-justice types isn't very convincing, either.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    120. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So do I want to avoid calling Trump's administration Nazis? Yeah. I find it unhelpful, idiotic, counter-productive and also intellectually lazy, not to mention dishonest, inflammatory and indefensible. What's your excuse?

      I wager it's because AmiMojo hasn't read or heard of 1984... or maybe he has read it and is using it as a manual instead of a warning.

      For the benefit of those who don't know, 1984 warns us about is that you can manipulate people's thoughts through manipulating the language they use (or can use, via censorship). Arguing over what labels to use on people (SJW, Nazi, etc) makes it easier to dehumanize them.

      It's worth noting that for all the argument over what words to use, the actual Nazis (the ones back in Germany) also manipulated language, going as far as killing those who spoke against than the Nazi party line.

      Last I checked we haven't gotten that far, and when it comes to free speech, it's not the Trump side who is associated with wanting to silence their critics. Really makes you wonder who the real Nazis are.

    121. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I don't see many such people, but I suspect they call themselves marxists rather than communists these days - communism has had some bad PR, what with the failures in the USSR and associated states.

    122. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by K10W · · Score: 1

      stabbed to death minutes after giving a seminar on how to resolve personal disputes on the internet.

      Not to be snarky here, but my first thought after reading this was "So I guess that's exactly NOT what you should do, huh?" (Sorry to be morbid.) At least the guy turned himself in soon afterwards. But he bothered the guy online, even kept making new IDs to hassle the guy after the previous one was disabled. What the hell is wrong with people? "Someone's wrong on the internet / in life and it's my duty / job / addiction to permanently correct them? Get over yourself and come up with a better argument. Make them come over to your side instead. Hell, maybe you'll even learn something yourself. Winston Churchill: A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

      I wonder if this is anything to do with internet argument/need to correct thing and is more a mental health thing oft not seen outside Japan, we look for more motive/reasons in other cultures because we haven't come across this trend. Purely annecdotal but I am in touch with friends on regular basis there, mainly Nagoya and Saitama, and they've mentioned events like this a few times in past several years and it seems more poorly understood mental health issue and how it manifests in a given culture. There has been a strange trend of events like this that seems to be increasing, but it could be it has always been there and just lid was kept on it better in past for multiple reasons so folks didn't hear of it as much. In most the cases friends heard of local attack that seems disturbingly similar in that someone gets stabbed over very minor/nothing at all trigger then perpetrator turns themselves in. They mentioned one guy had allegedly admitted they were just looking for someone to stab and anyone would do.

      Of course maybe it is a need to correct thing but the similarity makes me wonder. Thing that makes it so bizarre is as a whole most Japanese friends of mine seem to agree with the stereotype of their "don't cause a scene over any event" culture and agree it is generally like that. Even the more westernised and slightly more fiery tempered ones who studied and worked in EU and Canada for a long time are hard pushed to make a scene publicly, they prefer to bitch to me in private about stuff. Seems they'll go out their way to avoid public dispute even when they know everyone around them agrees and privately backs them up, which makes such escalations to violence (in the general culture at least) all the more odd.

    123. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can call them whatever you want. Just don't advocate for vigilante violence against them, or against anyone for that matter, unless they are an immediate threat.

    124. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn, arguing with you people is like talking to a tree stump.

    125. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      These people are crazy. We used to institutionalize them. Problem was a lot of people didn't belong there. They were crazy but not a danger to other people, animals, things like that. They closed the institutions and now we have lots of crazy people on the street. Just work retail sometime, or go to a walmart. Sometimes you can see crazy on display at a walmart.

    126. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Glancing at various news sources, I get stories from Brazil getting a wind power contract with China,

      Brazil has its own refugees from gang violence. Every major city is an absolute hotbed of crime. Kidnappings of anyone who might have anything are a regularity.

      to Argentina close to legalizing abortion.

      Ooooh, they almost have basic human rights? Sweet! We're likely to lose those shortly here in the USA, so maybe more people will head there.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    127. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The ONLY way to overcome Hate is with Forgiveness -- that is, repaying Evil with Good.
      [...]
      Violence is NEVER the solution.

      Violence solves things all the damned time. Maybe it's not the best solution, but non-violent solutions are totally capable of creating secondary problems, just as violent ones are.

      Now let's look at the part I elided...

      It is (partially) what makes us humane -- something that we STILL need to learn from the animals: Unconditional Love.

      Animals have all the same problems humans do, except the ones involving government. So far, they seem sufficiently intelligent not to make that particular mistake. They have leadership, but it doesn't seem especially complex. Good on 'em.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    128. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, although I'm willing to include people who do all the things that Nazis would do except display the iconography as well, so long as they are willing to rub shoulders with people who do. Anyone who for example marches shoulder to shoulder with anyone carrying their Nazi, White Power (etc.) flag might as well just admit they're a Nazi too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    129. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Einzelhaft · · Score: 1

      You miss the point, but illustrate it nicely. Once discussion is closed, you are not allowing for reasoned debate, you're merely propagandizing. True or false, flat earth or no, dismissing other's opinions and beliefs as invalid dehumanizes them. It is the reason we are so polarized and no progress is made.

    130. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      True or false, flat earth or no, dismissing other's opinions and beliefs as invalid dehumanizes them.

      In order for that to be true, humans would have to be infallible. You illustrate nicely how false that idea is. Humans are wrong all the time. That doesn't make them inhuman. How they treat other people is what has the capacity to do that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    131. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by jaminJay · · Score: 1

      What's the old saying? "If you make someone think they're thinking, they'll love you. Actually make them think and they'll hate you."

      --
      Leela: "Is all the work done by children?" Alien: "No, not the whipping."
    132. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Einzelhaft · · Score: 1

      There is subtlety here. Dismissing anotherâ(TM)s thoughts out of hand, unexamined, is dehumanizing. You missed the point again.

    133. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      Just because someone says something you disagree with or find offensive, does not give you the right to be violent and otherwise violate the law.

      Firstly, there was no violence in asking someone to leave a restaurant. Secondly, when that person is in government, you absolutely have the right to peaceful protest, up to and including ejecting them from your restaurant. Such a thing may be filed under 'civil disobediance'. There is no parallel between kicking Sanders out, and refusing to serve gay people. One is discrimination, the other legitimate protest.

    134. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They call it "hiding their power level", a Dragon Ball meme. Use alternative iconography and coded messages, that sort of thing. Still Nazis though.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    135. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "Dismissing anotherÃ(TM)s thoughts out of hand, unexamined, is dehumanizing. You missed the point again."

      You spewed stupidity again. No one is doing that. Their thoughts have already been examined. They aren't even their thoughts, they're just repeating something they heard from another idiot.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    136. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brazil has its own refugees from gang violence. Every major city is an absolute hotbed of crime. Kidnappings of anyone who might have anything are a regularity.

      ...which side are you on the debate again? You sound like President Trump here, making a case that we shouldn't let refugees in as they're just so dangerous.

      Ooooh, they almost have basic human rights? Sweet! We're likely to lose those shortly here in the USA, so maybe more people will head there.

      So you concede the point that the USA isn't the better place to go then?

    137. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Brazil has its own refugees from gang violence. Every major city is an absolute hotbed of crime. Kidnappings of anyone who might have anything are a regularity.

      ...which side are you on the debate again? You sound like President Trump here, making a case that we shouldn't let refugees in as they're just so dangerous.

      If I said "Brazilians are all criminals" then I would sound like a Trumpanzee, but I didn't so I don't. Refugees are overwhelmingly people fleeing violence, not the perpetrators of violence themselves. This is not a complicated concept, though I'm not surprised you don't understand it. You seem to have a problem understanding even simple sentences.

      So you concede the point that the USA isn't the better place to go then?

      It won't be, if Trump and his cadre of Nazis get their way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    138. Re:I must have read this right when it came out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I said "Brazilians are all criminals" then I would sound like a Trumpanzee,

      Trump didn't say they are all criminals either.

      See, Trump's famous statement is "they're bringing drugs; they're bringing crime". Thing is, that statement doesn't quantify anything. He didn't say "all", or even "some" or "many", or cite any numbers of percentages. He keeps it vague so you can interpret it however you want... the same way his base does (read: you actually are acting just like a Trumpanzee)

      Refugees are overwhelmingly people fleeing violence, not the perpetrators of violence themselves.

      So why not apply this same logic to Brazil or other South American countries? If you can say most refugees are good, why do you insist that most of Brazil or South American countries aren't?

      This is not a complicated concept, though I'm not surprised you don't understand it.

      Oh I do understand it...

      You seem to have a problem understanding even simple sentences

      ...and I can understand your simple sentences perfectly. Thing is, your simple sentences contain logical inconsistencies, so I have to ask for clarification.

      It won't be, if Trump and his cadre of Nazis get their way.

      Well, apparently they are getting their way, or you wouldn't be complaining here. Even with the midterms coming, it's unlikely the Democrats can get the 2/3rds majority in the Senate. Without it, Trump can still exercise his veto while Congress can't override the veto.

      (this assumes Congress even passes something for Trump to sign; absent laws from Congress, Trump can, just like Obama and previous presidents, still operate and push his agenda via executive orders and other means)

    139. Re: I must have read this right when it came out. by Einzelhaft · · Score: 1

      Arenâ(TM)t even their thoughts? Your Powers astound me. You know the thoughts of others and can validate or dismiss them based solely on your personal store of knowledge with no further ado. Iâ(TM)m nearly humbled, having never met a god before.

  6. seminar on resolving internet issues? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    Seems to me that he either didn't practice what he lectured on, or his lecture probably wasn't worth attending....

    That said, I have to wonder what drove his attacker to (a) kill him, then (b) turn himself in within a few hours (but not immediately)....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My understanding is that the Japanese consider the risk of being caught of a crime to be pretty high, which it AFAIK is as their police isn't as overburdened as police is in many parts of the world, and you do get an unusually large amount of leniency if you do it. If you know you're almost definitely going to get caught, it's probably not worth it trying to run or cover your tracks.

      --
      "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    2. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe the one that turn himself wasn't the real culprit, but just someone hired to take the blame.

    3. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that the Japanese consider the risk of being caught of a crime to be pretty high, which it AFAIK is as their police isn't as overburdened as police is in many parts of the world, and you do get an unusually large amount of leniency if you do it. If you know you're almost definitely going to get caught, it's probably not worth it trying to run or cover your tracks.

      That I understand. What I don't understand is the three hour delay. If you assume you're going to be caught quickly, why not just stab the crap out of whomever, then just stand there waiting for the police to show up?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because if a person who doesn't take on information from his murder victim's lecture, it's because the lecture wasn't worth listening, or because his victim didn't do a good enough job conveying his argument...

    5. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it can take time to calm down and start acting rationally again, plus it probably takes an amount of willpower to walk up to the police and say "I killed a guy, please charge me with murder (and possibly execute me)"

    6. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Reaper9889 · · Score: 1

      It might be a bit spur of the moment kind of attack (on the other hand, he got whatever he used to stab with from somewhere) and he had things he wanted to handle before going to prison.

    7. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      That I understand. What I don't understand is the three hour delay. If you assume you're going to be caught quickly, why not just stab the crap out of whomever, then just stand there waiting for the police to show up?

      Hookers and coke.

      If I was an internet troll, and probably still a virgin, that's what I would do if I knew I was going to spend the next 10+ years in prison.

    8. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or he did, but you know, just because you can handle most idiots, doesn't mean that you can handle all of them.

      Also, I find it sad that people read about someone getting straight up assaulted and murdered by some psycho, and their first reaction is to quip about it.

    9. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm going to go out on a wild limb and hypothesize that the guy who stabbed the blogger to death was not in an entirely rational logical state of mind...

    10. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by fazig · · Score: 1

      The phrasing in the article is a set-up for jokes about the irony in it. It was the first thing that came to my mind as well when reading the first sentence and after looking into the comment section I wasn't surprised to find several other people who apparently thought the same.
      It's not the fault of GP if morons mod it (up) as anything other but 'funny' or maybe 'underrated'.

    11. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me that he either didn't practice what he lectured on, or his lecture probably wasn't worth attending....

      Or that someone was upset about his lecture material because they felt it was stupid and/or ineffectual and was upset that his suggestions on improvements were being ignored. And when he was banned and repeatedly changed IDs (which included a lot of abusive language to everyone they disagreed with), they finally decided to show the lecturer just how wrong he was about deescalating internet abuse.

      This is all conjecture of course, but the general point is you're pretending like people who are seeking help or guidance with emotionally charged issues won't react emotionally at times and discard reason, even to the point of murdering people. Would you have the same sort of callus or crass comments if a marriage counselor and spouse were knifed to death? Or would you recognize that people do pretty horrible things at times and then regret it and turn themselves in?

    12. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That said, I have to wonder what drove his attacker to (a) kill him, then (b) turn himself in within a few hours (but not immediately)....

      That's not uncommon, actually.

      People do the crime out of high emotion, then a little reason kicks back in afterward and they realize their situation is hopeless and they will be hunted down anyway.

      I actually know someone who did that (though he turned himself in in a couple of days, not hours).

    13. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > why ... turn himself in within a few hours (but not immediately)

      Japan hangs murderers and if the perp has to be caught by police, that is the likely outcome in court as the perp will be considered recalcitrant. Turning oneself in, the perp may have hope of some leniency via pretense of remorse, i.e live but sit more than Buddha... (though japanese prison regimes are notoriously harsh, it won't be a norwegian holiday resort with PS4 and 8K flat screen TV, more like Supermax but without the high-tech).

    14. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Not so much leniency as avoiding a life sentence or the death penalty.

      We don't know the details but maybe he didn't even intend to kill the guy. He ran off before he was dead. Maybe once he realized he was facing murder charges and dying in jail he decided to hand himself in and hope for 10-15 years for cooperation and good behaviour.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Kokuyo · · Score: 2

      You seem to be of the impression that killing a human being (or any animal) for the first time was somehow easy.

      Have you ever had a near-hit? Or an actual accident? There is such a thing called shock.

      Circumstances make me believe that this was premeditated, however planning to do something and even really wanting to do it is something entirely different than standing before the result.

    16. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Headw1nd · · Score: 1

      From a purely rational point of view (which is not what I would expect from the assailant) there is an advantage to cleaning up, calling a lawyer, and walking into the police station with the lawyer to turn yourself in. You will receive better treatment and reduce the risk that you will be injured during your arrest, and mugshot photos of you covered in gore are never helpful in either your trial or sentencing.

    17. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "We don't know the details but maybe he didn't even intend to kill the guy"

      A person that wasn't intent on killing their victim wouldn't stab them in the NECK or CHEST of all places. Let alone both repeatedly.

      The guy didn't care. Which to be honest is just as bad as someone with murderous intent, or perhaps a bit worse since if they just don't care then it means they'd probably snap over a lot less. Like say over an internet argument. Oh wait a minute...!

    18. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Get high?
      Play video gaymez?
      Have sex?
      Eat food?
      Take a good shit?

      Who cares why the delay, its irrelevant.

    19. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article kind of makes it clear why the murderer ran away. He needed to get to a place where he could blog whatever it is that he did in the wake of the murder. Matsumoto is a narcissist and needs serious help.

    20. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Typing_Ptarmigan · · Score: 1

      Maybe the attacker is a fan of the Indiana Jones and the swordsman scene.

    21. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure he just intended to deliver a half dozen love pokes instead.

    22. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is that emotionally he was in Internet mode. Then he gradually realized it wasn't the Internet and the guy was really dead.

    23. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that he either didn't practice what he lectured on, or his lecture probably wasn't worth attending....

      The worlds greatest experts in their field aren't 100% right 100% of the time. Especially when it comes to lectures about the human psyche they are ALL worth attending, if for no other reason than to gather yet another data point in the wide and very varied set that is data on human interaction.

      I would also point out the true outlier case here. Internet abuse happens on a daily basis all over the world. But it's very rare to hear that someone actually gets murdered over it (suicide is far more common). This is no different than saying that you can't believe anything a certain police officer ever did was right because someone robbed him.

    24. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      leniency
      The guy most certainly gets the death sentence.
      And in Japan they have the habit that the date is not "defined" or "made public".
      That means, you can be dragged out of your cell at a random point in time and get executed.
      However that is usually a few decades, and you have a chance to either die in prison or even get pardoned after 30 or more years.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    25. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      In a civilized country you can wash before a "mug shot".
      In a civilized country you don't risk injury if you enter a police station.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    26. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1
      > Seems to me that he either didn't practice what he lectured on

      He lectured on resolving disputes *on the internet*. He was stabbed *in real life*.

    27. Re:seminar on resolving internet issues? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      How large a payment would be required for you to take someone's place for life in prison, or even on the gallows?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  7. Oh the irony. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you think the attacker listened to the seminar?

  8. Re:Ignore online abuse at your peril by Calydor · · Score: 1

    If they didn't when SWATtting became a thing they won't now.

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  9. Worst argument ever? by The+Cynical+Critic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So I guess we can safely assume that he wasn't as great at resolving internet arguments as he thought he was?

    Because an argument that lead to one of the parties getting to pissed off they decided to find the other in meatspace so that could stab them to death can't have ended particularly well...

    --
    "Why should I want to make anything up? Life's bad enough as it is without wanting to invent any more of it."
    1. Re: Worst argument ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For all we know, it could have been the offline argument that went out of hand.

    2. Re:Worst argument ever? by pD-brane · · Score: 2

      So I guess we can safely assume that he wasn't as great at resolving internet arguments as he thought he was?

      You really cannot say that based on a single incident, and not knowing more about this specific issue (assuming you don't know more than I do).

    3. Re:Worst argument ever? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      So I guess we can safely assume that he wasn't as great at resolving internet arguments as he thought he was? Because an argument that lead to one of the parties getting to pissed off they decided to find the other in meatspace so that could stab them to death can't have ended particularly well...

      There are always a few people out there who will resist any reasonable attempt to resolve differences, no matter how well done.

    4. Re:Worst argument ever? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He was probably thinking about securing online accounts and avoiding doxing... Which maybe he did, because the guy didn't go to his house or workplace, he had to wait for him to attend a public event to get near him. Avoiding murder was probably a bit beyond the scope of his talk.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    5. Re:Worst argument ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even Einstein was wrong occasionally. That doesn't invalidate everything else he ever said.

    6. Re:Worst argument ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      So I guess we can safely assume that he wasn't as great at resolving internet arguments as he thought he was?

      Probably But celebrity has long been a problem of attracting crazy people. Years ago I heard of some crazy lady in NZ that was stalking some poor lady who blogged about Harry Potter. The crazy lady would post death threats, rape threats, etc. It went on for years. After considerable effort the crazy lady in NZ did receive a restraining order, but she also vowed to continue to be a crazy stalker.

      The point being, it's not really about dispute resolution, it's more about protecting yourself from the nut cases of the world. This is why celebrities hire body guards. The threats are often real.

    7. Re:Worst argument ever? by HalAtWork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you resolve an argument with a deranged person? That's a different type of negotiating skill

    8. Re:Worst argument ever? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Because an argument that lead to one of the parties getting to pissed off they decided to find the other in meatspace so that could stab them to death can't have ended particularly well...

      Given the rarity of such an event it's pretty safe to say that this wasn't a typical internet argument. ...

      Please don't stab me for my difference in opinion.

    9. Re:Worst argument ever? by ayesnymous · · Score: 1
      > So I guess we can safely assume that he wasn't as great at resolving internet arguments as he thought he was?

      It wasn't an internet argument. He was stabbed *in real life*.

    10. Re:Worst argument ever? by Peter+P+Peters · · Score: 1

      How do you resolve an argument with a deranged person? That's a different type of negotiating skill

      I believe the NRA has the solution to that one.

  10. The tally is up to 3 now... by fibonacci8 · · Score: 5, Funny
    --
    Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    1. Re:The tally is up to 3 now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not an accident.

    2. Re:The tally is up to 3 now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. That tally is for accidents, not violent crimes.

    3. Re:The tally is up to 3 now... by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      I'm assuming (may God have mercy on my soul) based on Slashdot's headline that the stabbing was related in some way to the blogging activity of the deceased. One mistaken "your" / "you're" in a blog post and suddenly the stabbing is practically self defense to the right jury.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    4. Re:The tally is up to 3 now... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The thing I didn't like about that XKCD comic was that for the numbers to be comparable, you need to divide by the number of people participating in that activity. For example, a helluva lot more people ride elevators than go surfing or skateboarding. So even though elevators kill more people overall, the number of fatalities per participant is a lot lower for elevators.

    5. Re:The tally is up to 3 now... by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      Relevant XKCD

      Holy crap, a 50% increase in death by blogging!

      --
      Nope, no sig
    6. Re:The tally is up to 3 now... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Killed "by elevator" most likely does not mean killed "inside of an elevator".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re:The tally is up to 3 now... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Halfway in elevator. Messy.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  11. From the irony-at-its-worst dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hadn't noticed these "from the xxx dept" subtitles before today. I just looked at some other articles and they're quite amusing. How long have they been there?

    1. Re: From the irony-at-its-worst dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Since the dawn of time, Gramps. You may have disabled them in your account settings

    2. Re: From the irony-at-its-worst dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Longer than you've been alive.

  12. I demand a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    worst. seminar. ever.

    1. Re: I demand a refund by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem!

      Just meet me in the bathroom stall.

      I'm sure we can cut through any differences and set matters straight.

  13. The illusion of safety by MikeRT · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm not going to make this a gun issue because it's about self-defense in general. In a homogeneous, low-crime, high-trust society like Japan they could probably get away with just reexamining basic laws on mace and things like that. What really matters is something that doesn't get through the smug, protected, middle class set until it's thrown in their face:

    If someone wants to kill you, ain't a lot the government can do to stop it with preemptive legislation. If your coworker is willing to kill you, they can just bring a steak knife from home, follow you into the break room or bathroom and attack you. They don't need guns. They just need to be more concerned about killing you than getting away with it with their freedom intact.

    And that was clearly the case here.

    1. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm not going to make this a gun issue [...]"

      You did.
      By writing "they can just bring a steak knife from home".
      And, particularly, by writing: "They don't need guns."

      Here's something for you to read:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Studies
      You can start with the General section.

      "I'm not going to make this a gun issue [...]"
      Moron.

    2. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a homogeneous, low-crime, high-trust society

      Diversity is our strength. Survival of the fittest ensures Americans are all of us prepared for knife-wielding fuckos from the Internet.

    3. Re:The illusion of safety by BadDreamer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The issue with guns isn't if someone is determined to kill you. As you note, once someone reaches that point (which is very difficult to reach), there isn't much that will stop them.

      But when a gun is involved, there is no need to be determined to kill you. All it takes is a quick squeeze on a trigger. Something which is easy to do in anger, or accidentally, or just out of annoyance.

      The point of gun legislation is not to get at the people who are determined to kill you no matter what. It's to get at the people who don't, but who with a gun might kill you anyway.

    4. Re:The illusion of safety by mjwx · · Score: 0

      The issue with guns isn't if someone is determined to kill you. As you note, once someone reaches that point (which is very difficult to reach), there isn't much that will stop them.

      But when a gun is involved, there is no need to be determined to kill you. All it takes is a quick squeeze on a trigger. Something which is easy to do in anger, or accidentally, or just out of annoyance.

      The point of gun legislation is not to get at the people who are determined to kill you no matter what. It's to get at the people who don't, but who with a gun might kill you anyway.

      This, gun legislation in most western countries are designed to primarily protect the gun owner and user from their own gun.

      The secondary benefit is that it is difficult to impossible for the average hoodlum on the street to get a gun. Sure they have knifes but how often is an innocent bystander hit in a drive by stabbing? If you get stabbed by a crim in the UK, they did it with intent.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:The illusion of safety by butzwonker · · Score: 1

      No amount of self-defence training and no guns can save you from someone who wants to kill you. If you have a gun, the guy will find out and shoot you before you can even think 'oops'. If somebody wants to kill you, the only thing that might prevent it is that person's stupidity, lack of dedication to killing you, or a bunch of highly trained bodyguards. Even the latter will probably not stop that person, unless you can afford the best of the best.

      That being said, almost all self-defence situations have nothing to do with somebody trying to kill you.

    6. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then ban knives, ropes, cars, trucks, axes, bats, tall buildings, cliffs, pillows, rat poison, and sock full of quarters, etc. All used in anger at some point.

      The gun is actually less precise (because the operator is nearly always not well trained) and still requires thought and action. Buy the gun, pick up the gun, load the gun, point the gun, pull the trigger. Notice every action is human caused, just like using a sharp instrument, driving a car into a crowed, pushing someone over a cliff, holding a pillow over a person's face, or poisoning someone. The only difference is the gun can be used at a distance, with less precision.

      Anyway, you are not going to get the legislation you want. Even if your team is in power. They cannot get past basic facts of constitutional law.

    7. Re:The illusion of safety by sinij · · Score: 1

      What you say is true - anyone has an ability to kill you if they are sufficiently determined. What you should ask is what happens next, once person reaches "nothing to lose" state. Is it going to be peaceful surrender or a start of a killing spree?

    8. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you only knew how hard it is to pull a gun, and pull a trigger on a human being, even when your life is at stake... But you don't know and you would never understand. You're just an internet ignoramus. Little brain, big mouth, both full of shit.

    9. Re:The illusion of safety by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Cool story, bro. Meanwhile, guns are used hundreds of thousands of times every year in the US to stop people from hurting others. Criminals using illegally possessed guns commit almost all crime involving guns. The left's favorite boogeyman, the "assault rifle," is used in a pale fraction of the number of murders as bare hands and baseball bats. But people legally defending themselves with guns (including "assault rifles" - a complete misnomer) mitigate or completely prevent violent assault and murder orders of magnitude more often than criminals using guns actually kill anyone. Most of those defensive uses don't even involve a shot being fired. All of which you know, and are carefully avoiding because it takes the fun out of your narrative.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    10. Re:The illusion of safety by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No amount of self-defence training and no guns can save you from someone who wants to kill you.

      And yet guns (with and without owners seriously trained in self defense strategies, tactics, and legalities) are legally and constructively used hundreds of thousands of times every year to prevent violent assault or to mitigate one in progress. Guns have saved the lives of countless people that someone else wanted to kill. You seem to think that most violent assaults that end in someone's murder are all carried out by rational movie hit-men who spent the previous scene flipping through a folder of photos and getting a briefing from their handler before heading out in a late model BMW to kill their target. Here's the thing: no, you can't stop everyone intentional murder. But people defending themselves from violence - including the murderous variety - successfully use guns thousands and thousands of times every month. You seem to be suggesting that because the average person isn't likely to be able to stop a carefully planned murder that, therefore, all of those people who DO defend themselves should just give up and let their attackers have their way.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    11. Re:The illusion of safety by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1
      I wonder, if an AI was watching this guy's internet posts, could it have predicted the likely outcome, and been able to alert police, say, when he bought an airline ticket, to have them ask some questions? So is this an argument for big brother as a force for good? The alternative being we arm everyone to the teeth, and lose a couple of thousand a year to firearms accidents, and a likely increase in violent crime. Dunno, not liking my choices here.

      not real thrilled with the choices, but given what it is... I think I prefer big brother... just sayin'

    12. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The gun is actually less precise

      Doesn't matter. It's precise enough to be effective. In fact, it's so effective, the pro-gun side has constantly told us the gun is a superior tool (to knives, ropes, cars, etc) for the masses to use to defend themselves against intruders and potential oppressive government.

      (because the operator is nearly always not well trained)

      Irrelevant. As above, the pro-gun side often insists the gun is a great equalizer, because it's a lot easier for untrained (and physically weaker) people to quickly be able to stand up to intruders or government, both of whom are likely better trained and physically stronger.

    13. Re:The illusion of safety by Kokuyo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Which is all good and well and I do agree with you.

      The first two years after my twins were born, I was more than once glad that I don't have ammunition at home. I didn't ever think it would have been an actual danger but when thoughts like "Ya know, you jump off a bridge and all this crap is behind you" occur daily or even several times in a day, you just don't need to have to use the willpower to fight off added temptation, no matter how minor.

      That being said, I like guns. Collecting them, shooting them, cleaning them and working on them gives me pleasure. Something I can't say about a lot if not most aspects of adult life.

      If you're going to take them away from me after I have proven resilient enough to handle the responsibility in an ongoing and long-standing crisis situation under a lot of mental stress, you better have both a DAMNED good reason and a replacement for that hobby.

      If you're going to take something from a law abiding citizen, you better make it worth their while or no matter how much legalese you throw at me, I consider you a thief. And if you use the threat of police force, I consider you a robber.

      Doesn't mean I will take up arms against you. After all, the hobby isn't worth a human life. It will just piss me the fucking hell off and that's exactly how people like Trump get voted in...

    14. Re:The illusion of safety by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Doesn't mean I will take up arms against you. After all, the hobby isn't worth a human life.

      If you think the right to bear arms is about a hobby, hush.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:The illusion of safety by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 0

      Look, everybody, it's ScentCone rationalising his gun fetish and trying to persuade us to adopt it ourselves!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    16. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another AC here. Your statement have two major flaws.

      First, yes, it's hard for a normal person. We're not discussing normal people here. And the more guns you have out there, the more of them will find their ways into the hands of "not normal" people. That's simple probability for you, outside the fact that "not normal" people have a larger interest than normal to actually acquire a gun. Note, no, owning a gun doesn't mean you're necessarily an abnormal person, just that you belong to a group that wackos tend to gravitate towards. Just like the vast majority of all football fans aren't hooligans, but hooligans tend to gravitate towards football, especially fan clubs. (FTR, I'm talking about football, not handegg. I've no idea what the deal is with handegg fans.)

      Secondly, yes, you're still technically correct; it's not easy. It is, however, a significantly lower threshold compared to gutting someone with a knife. Just look at interviews with old vets, they usually aren't that happy about having shot anyone, but it's nothing compared to having to bayonet some poor bastard. So, the problem isn't that it's "easy" to shoot someone for a normal person; it's how much easier it is than killing someone by some other mean. And then we're just talking about the mental aspects of it.

    17. Re:The illusion of safety by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      That's very touching and all, but there are obviously a lot of people who have no such reservations. Thanks for playing!

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    18. Re:The illusion of safety by butzwonker · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's because you've shifted the goalpost from "someone is out there to kill you" to "preventing violence".

      You seem to be suggesting that because the average person isn't likely to be able to stop a carefully planned murder that, therefore, all of those people who DO defend themselves should just give up and let their attackers have their way.

      No, I do not seem to be suggesting that. Learn how to read & understand texts!

    19. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone wants to kill you, ain't a lot the government can do to stop it with preemptive legislation.

      If someone wants to kill you, odds are you can't stop it.

      You can be 300 lbs, 6'6", built like a body builder, carrying multiple weapons, and they can still snipe you from 100 yards away as you walk from your house to your car.

    20. Re:The illusion of safety by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      No, I don't think anyone with your obvious ignorance of the subject should go anywhere near any dangerous object, including guns.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    21. Re:The illusion of safety by ScentCone · · Score: 0

      No, Japan's murderers tend to use knives a lot more.

      But generally, you're right in a way. One of the reasons that law abiding people in the US need to preserve their constitutionally protected right to self defense is because we don't live in a police state where someone tasked with protecting your life is literally walking around with you wherever you go, and living in your home with you. Which wouldn't much matter, except that for a lot of reasons, we have a fairly high number of violent criminals who are routinely cut loose within days or hours of having been arrested for the LAST violent thing they did. When you have to deal with people like that, the cops are always a helpful several minutes away, ready to respond to take a report after you've been hurt or killed.

      As for your strawman about not enough guns in Japan ... sure, imagine I said all sorts of things I didn't say, if that makes you feel better about wanting to deprive, say, a 5'-0" woman from being able to defend herself. I know, you're thinking pepper spray, right? Or maybe that kickboxing class she took in high school?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    22. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd, I actually consider the anti-gun faction the biggest retards (your words, not mine) on earth.

      I mean, you want to enforce wide limitations on all people with no evidence that it's effective in even the slightest. Seriously, provide any evidence that gun laws work. I mean, even your favorite go to of "England" has fallen apart since today you're more likely to be shot in London than you are in New York. Granted that was always a case of cherry picking because you always like to ignore most of south america where most countries have extremely strict gun laws yet they also have some of the highest gun violence rates on earth.

      I'm against gun laws because I believe in fact based legislation, and I have never seen any evidence that supported the statement "gun laws reduce violent crime". All evidence I've been shown that supports that suffers from some pretty heavy cherry picking.

    23. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The secondary benefit is that it is difficult to impossible for the average hoodlum on the street to get a gun."

      You think those guys go *buy* a gun? Or pay attention to laws?

    24. Re:The illusion of safety by Rip!ey · · Score: 1

      What a disgusting crock of shit. This post was +5 America at one stage. Hopefully it becomes -1 disgusting in time.

      When you have a gun, it becomes easy to stand at a distance from your prey and end their life. All you need to do is find them.

      The bloggers issue is entirely separate from +1 guns. Guns just make ending a life easy.

    25. Re: The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I should defuse the situation. Taking a page from that Japanese handbook Iâ(TM)ll start stabbing the left Nazis.

    26. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [blockquote]Meanwhile, guns are used hundreds of thousands of times every year in the US to stop people from hurting others. [/blockquote]
      Citation definitely needed, because that is the biggest bunch of bullshit I've heard in a while. There is absolutely zero data that backs up this assertion.

      A gun in the house results in a 70% increase in being a victim of a homicide, and a 500% increase in the suicide rate.

      https://www.scientificamerican...

      [blockquote] But people legally defending themselves with guns (including "assault rifles" - a complete misnomer) mitigate or completely prevent violent assault and murder orders of magnitude more often than criminals using guns actually kill anyone. [/blockquote]

      I stand corrected, THIS is the biggest bunch of bullshit I've heard in a while.

    27. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they use knives, because getting a gun in Japan is pretty damned hard, if not entirely impossible. Do you know what they also generally don't have in Japan? Mass shootings. Murders with guns involved. And while correlation isn't causation, I'd say the evidence strongly suggest that they (and all other countries with strict gun laws) might be on to something.

      And btw, you have no constitutional right to strut around with a gun, unless you're part of a well regulated militia. Where and what is your militia? Which does most gun owners belong to?

      Speaking of police state, are you suggesting the Japanese, Swiss, Swedes etc are all living in "police states"? Or is your definition of a police state childish enough to encompass countries where you can't indulge your fetish?

      Finally as for your 1.52 m woman strawman; In most countries there is no need to be so scared to begin with. Besides, having a firearm in your handbag isn't going to help you anyway if you get into trouble. It's just more stupid, childish glorification of violence and guns. If your 1.52 m woman gets into trouble, it will happen so fast and unexpected that she'll never get her gun out. All it does is present a risk to herself, her potential kids and a dangerous item which can get stolen, certainly to a much larger degree than it would ever help her.

    28. Re:The illusion of safety by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Something which is easy to do in anger, or accidentally, or just out of annoyance....not to get at the people who are determined to kill you no matter what. It's to get at the people who don't, but who with a gun might kill you anyway.

      Gun laws don't stop those kinds of crimes because those people obtain guns legally.

      FYI: Take Baltimore city, for example. Most of the gun crime in the country is committed by individuals who:
      * Went out of their way to get a gun illegally ahead of time
      * Were already criminals
      * Had a plan in mind before they even obtained the gun
      * Were committing gang violence

    29. Re:The illusion of safety by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Informative

      Killing somebody in anger is only "easy' if you're a psychopath. It's hard to imagine a non-psychopath saying such a thing. Who's anger raises to the level of murderousness? That's serious mental illness - which is the real violence problem in society.

      I'll tell you who does want to kill you though - Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Leopold II, and Hitler. They are empirically far more dangerous.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    30. Re:The illusion of safety by strikethree · · Score: 1

      The point of gun legislation is not to get at the people who are determined to kill you no matter what. It's to get at the people who don't, but who with a gun might kill you anyway.

      That is noble and all, but I will take the Freedom to act over the supposed safety provided by being prohibited to act. In this case, it is about guns. I will take the Freedom to use a gun over the supposed safety provided by the regulation/prohibition of guns.

      There is no middle ground. You can either have Freedom, or you can have complications that tend to encourage safety, but do not guarantee safety.

      I choose Freedom.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    31. Re:The illusion of safety by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Looking at statistics on death from violence, "Freedom" means "Freedom to be killed violently".

      I'll give that up in a heartbeat.

    32. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet guns (with and without owners seriously trained in self defense strategies, tactics, and legalities) are legally and constructively used hundreds of thousands of times every year to prevent violent assault or to mitigate one in progress. Guns have saved the lives of countless people that someone else wanted to kill. You seem to think that most violent assaults that end in someone's murder are all carried out by rational movie hit-men who spent the previous scene flipping through a folder of photos and getting a briefing from their handler before heading out in a late model BMW to kill their target.

      That's because you've shifted the goalpost from "someone is out there to kill you" to "preventing violence".

      "Violent Assault" is a catchall for [attempted] murder. If a weapon was used, and someone died, manslaughter isn't even considered because death should be the expected result of assault with a deadly weapon. Attempts to kill someone are often intended as attempts to injure, then escalate. Firearms are used often to prevent violent assaults which likely will result in the victim dying. "Someone out there to kill you" is almost never a trained CIA/KGB assassin.

    33. Re:The illusion of safety by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Killing somebody in anger is only "easy' if you're a psychopath.

      Have you been outside lately? Done any driving? How many people have been in your lane coming around a blind corner? Every one of those people was at minimum a sociopath, and more likely a psychopath. They're willfully assaulting you with a deadly weapon which weighs over a ton.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:The illusion of safety by Notabadguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Killing somebody in anger is only "easy' if you're a psychopath. It's hard to imagine a non-psychopath saying such a thing. Who's anger raises to the level of murderousness? That's serious mental illness - which is the real violence problem in society.

      I'll tell you who does want to kill you though - Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, Leopold II, and Hitler. They are empirically far more dangerous.

      Killing someone in anger *is* easy. That's a crime of passion, and it happens all the time, around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      You don't have to be a psychopath, nor a sociopath for that, you only need to recognize that humans are prone to fits of extremes. In fact, being a psychopath is the absolute opposite of killing someone in anger. It's killing someone without feeling anything. I think I'm probably a psychopath; but I haven't killed enough people to tell.

      I said all that to say this - human life is cheap. There are more of us every day. There haven't even been any significant wars or depopulation events in living memory to make us feel fragile as a species. There are plenty of people who can look around themselves and see that no one is particularly important. Taking a life is socially repugnant, but ultimately irrelevant.

      If you've seen the movie "Punisher" or movies like it and thought, "Those men deserved to die," you're closer to the latter. If you refuse to watch it, or have seen it and thought, "He has no right to kill those men" you're closer to the former. In the context of this article, I treat everyone with respect - even people I hate, and it amazes me every time I see someone provoke another intentionally to rage - because you never know who might be ready to justify killing you - ranging from that blind rage crime of passion, to the coldly calculated, "I can make the world a little better for their absence."

    35. Re:The illusion of safety by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Looking at statistics on death from violence, "Freedom" means "Freedom to be killed violently".

      That's part of what it means, and it will always be part of what it means.

      I'll give that up in a heartbeat.

      That's why you deserve neither liberty nor security.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:The illusion of safety by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Yet I have both.

      Funny how that works.

    37. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gun in the house results in a 70% increase in being a victim of a homicide

      Perhaps people who acquire guns do so because they live in seedy neighborhoods and need them for protection... so they were more likely to be victims of violence in the first place.

    38. Re:The illusion of safety by lgw · · Score: 1

      Looking at statistics on death from violence, "Freedom" means "Freedom to be killed violently".

      I'll give that up in a heartbeat

      Those who would surrender freedom for safety deserve neither, and get neither. Do you think prisons are safer? Less violence there?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    39. Re:The illusion of safety by lgw · · Score: 1

      No amount of self-defence training and no guns can save you from someone who wants to kill you.

      Security is non-binary. No security is perfect, yet it still has value. No plan can 100% always protect you, but effective self-defense sure helps.

      That being said, almost all self-defence situations have nothing to do with somebody trying to kill you.

      Words mean what I want them to mean!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    40. Re:The illusion of safety by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Generally, yes. Prisons in most Western countries are very safe. Among the safest places you can be.

      But as with so many other things, the US is the exception. There is enormous amounts of violence in US society, and much of it is lethal, and that can be seen in prisons as well. And apparently this is a desired state of affairs, which to me is nothing short of insane.

    41. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's quite some nonsense, study a bit of criminology instead of talking out of your ass.

    42. Re:The illusion of safety by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "Citation definitely needed, because that is the biggest bunch of bullshit I've heard in a while. There is absolutely zero data that backs up this assertion."

      Every fucking police department in existence would like to have a word with you on that.

      "A gun in the house results in a 70% increase in being a victim of a homicide, and a 500% increase in the suicide rate."

      I should've been dead a LONG time ago were that true. Guess what? Still here.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    43. Re:The illusion of safety by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Yet I have both.

      You think you have both, when you have precious little of either, and both of them are slipping away from you. When anyone is deprived of their human rights, then yours are also threatened... unless, of course, you aren't human.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    44. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its cute that you think our species is capable of the wisdom required to change laws when history provides evidence to the contrary. change only comes when something catastrophic forces that change.

    45. Re:The illusion of safety by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      So, who exactly defines these "human rights", and who decided they include the right to suffer violent death?

      Because from where I sit, nothing is slipping away. I am free to live my life and express myself as I please, and I am also free from desperate people who are prepared to kill me for lunch money. Last time I was in the US that was not quite how it was there.

    46. Re:The illusion of safety by lgw · · Score: 1

      Doesn't seem like removing freedom helped much then.

      Of course, once you surrender your freedom, you lose the power to resist being sent into violent situations. Chained to the bench in the war galley; sent to clear a minefield the easy way; forced to fight on the front lines, but not given a gun. History is replete with such examples.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    47. Re:The illusion of safety by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Which is why I do not give that up.

      Giving up the "freedom" to be surrounded by desperate people, and having to arm oneself to get a false sense of security, is not actually a surrender of freedom. It's a gain in actual freedom, as it frees me to live my life as I please, without having to be on my guard against my fellow citizens.

      It is really quite liberating. You should try it sometime!

    48. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wanna know how I know you've never been married?

    49. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need a gun to defend yourself, even from someone with a gun. You do need to be smart, which you obviously are not.

    50. Re:The illusion of safety by tsqr · · Score: 1

      And btw, you have no constitutional right to strut around with a gun, unless you're part of a well regulated militia.

      That argument has been debunked so thoroughly and so frequently by Constitutional scholars that I'm surprised you have the temerity to use it in public.

    51. Re:The illusion of safety by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      not real thrilled with the choices, but given what it is... I think I prefer big brother... just sayin'

      It's just a real shame that the power that comes from a complete surveillance state invariably results in oppression and tyranny. Makes the occasional stabbing seem more tolerable than the endless face-stomping of jackboots.

    52. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >No amount of self-defence training and no guns can save you from someone who wants to kill you.
      This is a bald assertion with no evidence given by you. The only "evidence" you have is the same cooked-up scenarios that everyone opposed to self defence training uses, and the implied qualifier that someone who wants to kill you is highly skilled and will always get the jump on you.
      And you *hedge your own statement* by saying if the would-be killer couldn't do it, they just weren't effective or lacked conviction. No true scotsman: (s)he wasn't a *real* killer...!
      Tthis is a meaningless retarded baby-shit argument that provides no useful information: you're basically saying ONLY an killer's skill matters, never the victim's.
      What if you yourself are a trained body guard? Do you have any chance against an assailant? Do you as a bodyguard need additional bodyguards? Does their defence training matter? :)
      I bet you fantasise about killing people all the time, imagining how easy it is to get away with it and how nothing can stop you because you've planned out a checkmate 12 moves ahead.

    53. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The purpose of gun legislation is to make lawmakers feel like they're doing something good and not feel bad about punting the ball on the socioeconomic factors which lead to gun violence and general crime increases.

    54. Re: The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story, bro. Meanwhile, guns are used hundreds of thousands of times every year in the US to stop people from hurting others.

      Nope. That would require a blistering rate of crime.

       

      Criminals using illegally possessed guns commit almost all crime involving guns.

      Sure man, except that would literally include the illegal gun sales, so you are just using fudged numbers anyway.

      The left's favorite boogeyman, the "assault rifle," is used in a pale fraction of the number of murders as bare hands and baseball bats.

      The assault rifle is an issue not because of its individual prevalence, but its situational potency. That said, handguns actually receive more discussion, but you won't pay attention to that.

      But people legally defending themselves with guns (including "assault rifles" - a complete misnomer) mitigate or completely prevent violent assault and murder orders of magnitude more often than criminals using guns actually kill anyone.

      It's funny how quick you are to include assault rifles in your phantom statistics when you just got done insisting they weren't that prevalent for crime. Your silence is conspicuous.

      Most of those defensive uses don't even involve a shot being fired. All of which you know, and are carefully avoiding because it takes the fun out of your narrative.

      Most of those "defensive uses" don't exist except in the realm of fantasy, as people believe their guns somehow did something.

      But you still rely on those concocted statistics because if you had to admit they were imaginary, it would break your preferred narrative.

      Here's a hint: there is no real data collection on defensive gun uses. Nobody tracks it.

      Of course, nobody really tracks gun accidents either.

    55. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curious where you live where there is no crime of any sort and no need to guard against your fellow citizens.
      I say this not as a USA resident, in case you were going to assume that.

    56. Re:The illusion of safety by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Killing somebody in anger is only "easy' if you're a psychopath.

      No. That's the exact opposite of a psychopath. A psychopath is able to kill someone easily without external influence of emotions on his thought.

    57. Re: The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Japan's murderers tend to use knives a lot more.

      You mean of the under 500 homicides in Japan, that's total, the portion by knife is a lot more than what?

      Certainly not the US, which has around 2,000.

      You really suck at this, you should stop.

      You just lie too much.

    58. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OP here. I've been training self-defense for more than two decades. Now get off my lawn you stupid idiot.

    59. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gun does not guarantee safety. A gun merely raises the odds that the confrontations in your life will end with someone dying as the smart person who leaves when they find out you have a gun, will get one of their own and wait for you with the element of surprise on their side.

    60. Re:The illusion of safety by anon+mouse-cow-aard · · Score: 1

      It's just a real shame that the power that comes from a complete surveillance state invariably results in oppression and tyranny. Makes the occasional stabbing seem more tolerable than the endless face-stomping of jackboots.

      The thing about people in Jackboots is that they will be surveilled also. The key is always *who watches the watchers*, and I think the only solution is that everyone has the option of watching anyone. The guys with jackboots would be caught and punished. Besides, Jackboots are so 20th century. I expect something like Chinese social networking points style oppression in this century. The government will just assign you demerit points, and folks will be graded based on the company they keep, so you will get gradually ostracised by *right* thinking people. It will be awful, but it won't be sooo bad that people rise up en masse. Why get folks riled up?

      I don't think saying *yeah people get stabbed a bit* will be an answer that will convince. There will always be those who believe in the perfectibility of man.

    61. Re:The illusion of safety by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your share but Anecdotal evidence is useless. Every debatable topic has an outlier example in any direction. Reliable overall statistics and general trends are what needs to be used here.

      Also, the debate on gun control is over ordinary citizens having guns. It would be fucking ridiculous if we were including the police force or our military in the debate on having guns. Both sides of the gun control debate want to keep police and military armed.

      If you have reliable statistics on ordinary armed citizens stopping crimes that would be a neat bit of data for me.

    62. Re:The illusion of safety by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      I think I'm probably a psychopath; but I haven't killed enough people to tell.

      if you've actually considered the possibility that you're a psychopath then you probably aren't one.

      If you want some (virtual!) practice though, play Yandere Simulator or at least watch some YouTube videos. You can learn all types of useful things!

      Needless to say, this is obviously just a game, not indicative of real life -- unless you start seeing 2D characters around you.

      Also, we want to think that "we're" always in control, but if we get stressed out enough (think enough repressed aggravation and hate morphed into rage) I think the lower brain comes into play and subverts things. So you "always" control your feelings and actions, but they suddenly and literally control you, so your conscious and planning mind flips to solving the imperative panic response problems. Legal, moral, and ethical ideas all be dammed, adrenaline solves the immediate problem; the next breath can take care of itself.

      This is partly what I think is wrong with schools -- teach Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic, basic health, math, and budgeting skills, along with self-control (And Hell, maybe that includes dealing with bullies.) You WANT it now, you don't NEED it now. That cookie, doughnut, movie can wait. That new car can wait if you still have a beat-up working one. We all have to get along with others, although sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and minimize contact. You are NOT always right, listen to opposing views, realize they might have a point as well.

      That works BOTH WAYS though, they need to listen to you. Demonizing them (those INHUMAN monsters!) and completely shutting them out doesn't help anyone. I was shocked to see the mandatory XKCD cartoon here in a discussion. If he's right -- if everyone's completely made up their mind and not ever talking or listening to each other -- we're lost. (BF: we'll all hang separately.) Zealots are one thing, discussion is another. And "civility is white privilege" -- oh my God, if you tarnish the golden rule (completely ignoring religion) then you really ARE evil. If "Strength is Justice" then snipers rule.

      To clarify this using an "old conflict": angels and demons all fight for what's "right" -- but I imagine in their own mind they think THEY'RE 100% right and it's the OTHER group contains the demons.

      So which side are you on again? Are you sure?

      Oh, and one final group that actually wants to kill me, that I know of -- extreme Muslims. I'm an atheist and either I'll submit, or die. Or so I understand. I don't like religion and hate extreme anything, but I don't think the extreme Buddhists, Wiccans, and Christians literally want to kill me while the Muslims do. I could be wrong but haven't found any evidence yet. (And I haven't looked THAT much, and one article/comment in either direction isn't enough.)

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    63. Re:The illusion of safety by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      We can tell you're an expert, because instead of providing any actual insight or citations, you posted anonymously and went for the lazy, childish ad hominem. Congrats on ceding the point while also having a little foot-stamping fit to show that you really have nothing useful to say. Amazing how often that happens.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    64. Re:The illusion of safety by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      I know, it physically hurts you to read the recently released CDC study, because it takes all the fun out of your snark. But maybe you should get used to it anyway.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    65. Re:The illusion of safety by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      I think I'm probably a psychopath; but I haven't killed enough people to tell.

      if you've actually considered the possibility that you're a psychopath then you probably aren't one.

      I hope so. I consider the idea because I don't feel remorse or guilt about the ones I have killed.

    66. Re:The illusion of safety by walllaby · · Score: 1

      No amount of self-defence training and no guns can save you from someone who wants to kill you.

      And yet guns (with and without owners seriously trained in self defense strategies, tactics, and legalities) are legally and constructively used hundreds of thousands of times every year to prevent violent assault or to mitigate one in progress. Guns have saved the lives of countless people that someone else wanted to kill.

      ...citation needed.

  14. Like Clockwork by mentil · · Score: 0

    Further details: the assailant had been just let out on bail for fleeing from the scene of the crime, stole the bicycle from an attendant of a larceny workshop, didn't attend his anger management class because he was too angry, and then found a bloody knife lying in a gutter which he later used to stab the victim. /poortaste

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  15. Point proven? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

    Any word on whether the victim was heard gasping "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" as he was rushed off for treatment?

  16. APK by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    That is why I never mess with you people online. You are all my friends.

    1. Re:APK by houghi · · Score: 1

      The friends of my enemies are my enemies, so you are lucky I do not have any.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    2. Re:APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever, fag.

    3. Re:APK by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      You don't have any friends? Or enemies? Or friends of enemies? Either way, everyone likes me.

    4. Re:APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, are you new here or something? Typical /. poster has two friendly relationships in their life - with their cat and mom.

    5. Re:APK by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      I don't like you! ...... Ok.... Fine.... I like you....

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    6. Re:APK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good of you to say that.
      You're on my naughty list now.
      Enjoy the wonderful nightmares coming your way.

  17. YOU HAD ONE JOB by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1
    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  18. Lunatics on world stage by Martin+S. · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is also the case of the guy that flew from New Zealand to the US to attack teenage girl, and was shot.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/wor...

    1. Re:Lunatics on world stage by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Where the difference between dead victim and barely surviving assailant was that in the US you are allowed means to defend yourself.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re: Lunatics on world stage by locketine · · Score: 1

      However if the attacker had also been from the USA, he would have brought a gun to the gun fight.

      You also have to wonder about the state of mind and mental faculties of someone who would attempt to break into a home with a gun pointed at them and being verbally told that they will be shot.

      --
      Think globally but act within local variable scope.
    3. Re: Lunatics on world stage by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      However if the attacker had also been from the USA, he would have brought a gun to the gun fight.

      s/would/might/

      If you had a point to stand on, then every single assault in the USA would be committed with a firearm, which is not the case. Logic? You fail it!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Lunatics on world stage by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      If you can't come up with ways to defend yourself without a firearm handy, then maybe you're just... too stupid to live?

      Right, so please tell me what are my chances against a roided-out thug if both of us have knives. With a gun, physical strength hardly matters.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:Lunatics on world stage by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you can't come up with ways to defend yourself without a firearm handy, then maybe you're just... too stupid to live?

      Right, so please tell me what are my chances against a roided-out thug if both of us have knives. With a gun, physical strength hardly matters.

      Not just that, but you can be smart enough to know how to use a knife in combat and still get shot by someone dumb enough to whip out a gun and shoot you with it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Lunatics on world stage by lgw · · Score: 1

      If you can't come up with ways to defend yourself without a firearm handy, then maybe you're just... too stupid to live?

      What shape is your grandmother in? Does she seem likely to succeed in defending herself without an equalizer?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Lunatics on world stage by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You're allowed to defend yourself in most countries. The difference is if your attacker isn't from the USA you may stand a chance.

      Sidenote: I thank god that I live in a country where obtaining a gun is incredibly difficult. Being hospitalised 15 years ago with cuts to my hand because someone tried to stab me would have gone very differently had the assailant had a gun.

      And before someone says I could defend myself, or someone would have defended me, allow me to preempt you: bull-fucking-shit.

    8. Re:Lunatics on world stage by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The story was about a guy entering through the door.

      You take a broom, fire iron, baseball bat etc. p.p. to defend against him.

      No gun or knife needed ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    9. Re:Lunatics on world stage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure most grandmothers are too slow a quick-draw to draw on a stranger who's already pointing his gun at them. No equalizer in a gun.

    10. Re:Lunatics on world stage by lgw · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure most grandmothers are too slow a quick-draw to draw on a stranger who's already pointing his gun at them. No equalizer in a gun.

      Some criminals don't have guns. And if it's a Texas grandmother, I wouldn't take those odds on the quick-draw.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  19. Hey ladies! by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 5, Funny

    For your information, I give seminars on how to avoid crazy sex with multiple gorgeous women.

    Hint hint...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Hey ladies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Unfortunately, your are still getting stabbed. The only thing changes is by whom.

    2. Re:Hey ladies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um...I think you've got the wrong definition of either woman or stab or maybe even sex in your sentence someplace..

    3. Re:Hey ladies! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      There goes Roscoe again, out to get Crazy Cooter.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Hey ladies! by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Well.... you are going to get the exact opposite of that:

      Not avoiding sex with a single ugly man... enjoy!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    5. Re:Hey ladies! by gosand · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, your are still getting stabbed. The only thing changes is by whom.

      No, the difference is with who gets stabbed, and with what object.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  20. What does this incident teach us? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Never go to the toilet without you Katana.

  21. Wrong assumption by sinij · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Deceased made wrong assumption - that you could resolve arguments and reach understanding with all people. This is just not true.

    Additionally, Internet is unlike person-to-person communication in a way that you don't screen your audience for sanity and you don't get non-verbal clues giving you an early warning that someone is about to blow the lid.

    More so, once people made up their mind it is virtually impossible to change their mind with logic. People change their behavior and convictions due to pain (social or otherwise) and not due to being convinced by evidence and reason.

    As such, the only rational approach to online and social media discourse is to act pseudonymously and acrimoniously.

    1. Re:Wrong assumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because some people are just wrong and they don't know it. They need to be convinced by any means necessary that they are wrong.

    2. Re:Wrong assumption by PPH · · Score: 1

      As such, the only rational approach to online and social media discourse is to act pseudonymously and acrimoniously.

      The latter might not be a good idea if you can't absolutely ensure the former. Doxing is a thing.

      you don't screen your audience for sanity and you don't get non-verbal clues giving you an early warning

      You don't from sociopaths either. Or was that psychopaths? I always get them mixed up. Either way, I'm not going to rely on my amateur psychology skills to keep myself safe.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Wrong assumption by sinij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, doxing is a thing regardless of how you behave. There are plenty of rational, civil, and well-meaning people that were dragged by a social mob. It is almost arbitrary on who gets targeted and why.
       
        Acting rationally and civilly is a handicap if your goal is to advance your ideas. Slogans and soundbites, shaming and insulting, and marginalization and uncharitable vilification of opposing views is by far more effective.
       
      This isn't how it should be, but this is how it is. Our society and norms are not designed for instant, global, and non-individual communication.

    4. Re:Wrong assumption by sinij · · Score: 2

      This goes much deeper than "some people are just wrong and they don't know it".

      First, right and wrong are not always binary or universal. It might not even be possible to know what is right for some situations. Instead, we ought to look at epistemology of one's beliefs. How well-justified one belief ought to determine its validity.
      Second, people might be committed to a certain beliefs in more than intellectual way. It could be part of their personal and group identity. It might be part of their upbringing. Changing your mind on something always have costs. If these costs are too high, such as reevaluating your associations and past decisions, individual is likely to hold to discredited ideas by deploying confirmation bias. More so, self-view also plays into this - admitting to being wrong have costs to your self-esteem.
      Third, ideas are fundamentally predictive models of the world. They don't have to be entirely correct to be accurate predictors. In this way, biologically and evolutionary, it isn't necessary to be correct all the time, rather it is necessary to not be too slow to respond. As such, simpler but flawed is heavily preferred over complex and accurate. We take all kinds of shortcut and heuristics in our thinking, it is natural and fundamental part of our thinking.

    5. Re:Wrong assumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends. Maybe he used blocking or admin powers to "win" his arguments, pissing off the others to no end, thus seeking other powers to even the scores a bit.
      Yet another nail in the "don't expect anonymity online" debate.

  22. If you need to stab someone to win an argument by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 0

    Your side of the argument is shit. Hidemitsu Matsumoto should of committed suicide to show his commitment to his side of the argument. Now he has lost forever.

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
    1. Re:If you need to stab someone to win an argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "should have," not "should of" and no, i am not giving seminars on this in Fukuoka

    2. Re:If you need to stab someone to win an argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Framing a murder in terms of debate by saying the killer has lost the argument is seriously grasping for a modicum of solace. Maybe it helps you sleep better at night.
      When someone has decided to kill someone else, they aren't concerned with the validity of their argument any more.
      You could say he's a martyr for online bullying.

  23. How Could This Happen... by rally2xs · · Score: 0

    ... in a country that has collected up virtually all their guns?

    1. Re:How Could This Happen... by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      When are you guys going to start a revolution with your pea-shooters? I heard that is why you need them: to protect us from a tyrannical government. So...when?

    2. Re:How Could This Happen... by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      When the time is right.

      A generalized gun confiscation would probably make it happen. A coup against the elected gov't might, too.

    3. Re:How Could This Happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it was a stabbing, dumbass.

    4. Re:How Could This Happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Befriend with a dictator massively killing his people, not a good reason.

      Befriend with middle east country oppressing women, homosexuals, non muslim, financing terrorism, not a good reason.

      Separating children from their families putting them in cage, drugging them, not a good reason.

      Taking your gun ==> revolution. You never used your gun for any good reason, they are useless. It is more about shooting can in your backyard.

    5. Re:How Could This Happen... by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Rightttt....sure. I can't wait for everyone to leave their trailers and take action. Just like the movies!

    6. Re:How Could This Happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:How Could This Happen... by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      It would be a horror. Millions dead. You wouldn't enjoy it. We are doing everything we can to avoid it.

    8. Re:How Could This Happen... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, if the attacker had had a gun, I'm sure he could have at least gotten two or three other folks as collateral damage.

      --
      That is all.
    9. Re:How Could This Happen... by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Silly Slashdot poster. This tyrannical government is doing what gun owners want!

    10. Re:How Could This Happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be a horror. Millions dead. You wouldn't enjoy it. We are doing everything we can to avoid it.

      This. Let the local sheriff or some random ATF guy try going from house to house and seizing guns here in Texas. He wouldn't make it to the first porch.

    11. Re:How Could This Happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millions of treasonous gun nuts dead wouldn't be a huge tragedy. It'd make this country a whole lot safer, that's for sure.

    12. Re:How Could This Happen... by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When are you guys going to start a revolution with your pea-shooters? I heard that is why you need them: to protect us from a tyrannical government. So...when?

      If it's ever necessary, it will happen the same way it did last time. Citizens with guns, mostly ex-military and led by ex-military, will take military armories on the first day of the war. Military bases are gun-free zones, after all. (Yes, really, a soldier can't even carry his own personal gun on base.)

      Half the militia that fought the British troops in the Battles of Lexington and Concord were exactly the cliche - bunches of dumb, poorly trained hicks all related to one another. But half weren't, and they accomplished something.

      If you don't know US history, it might surprise you that the war started when the governor sent troops to confiscate military-style weapons from the populace. Didn't work out well for him, in the end.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:How Could This Happen... by toadlife · · Score: 1

      If it's ever necessary, it will happen the same way it did last time. Citizens with guns, mostly ex-military and led by ex-military, will take military armories on the first day of the war. Military bases are gun-free zones, after all. (Yes, really, a soldier can't even carry his own personal gun on base.)

      In your fantasy, would they also take control of all of the tanks, planes and drones?

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    14. Re:How Could This Happen... by toadlife · · Score: 1

      When are you guys going to start a revolution with your pea-shooters?

      Just as soon as they can find a pea-shooter that can hit a drone at 20,000 feet and take out a Abrams.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    15. Re:How Could This Happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come try to kill me. Please.

    16. Re:How Could This Happen... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      In your fantasy, would they also take control of all of the tanks, planes and drones?

      I'd really like to know how they plan to deal with nukes.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    17. Re:How Could This Happen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When are you guys going to start a revolution with your pea-shooters? I heard that is why you need them: to protect us from a tyrannical government. So...when?

      If it's ever necessary, it will happen the same way it did last time. Citizens with guns, mostly ex-military and led by ex-military, will take military armories on the first day of the war. Military bases are gun-free zones, after all. (Yes, really, a soldier can't even carry his own personal gun on base.)

      Half the militia that fought the British troops in the Battles of Lexington and Concord were exactly the cliche - bunches of dumb, poorly trained hicks all related to one another. But half weren't, and they accomplished something.

      If you don't know US history, it might surprise you that the war started when the governor sent troops to confiscate military-style weapons from the populace. Didn't work out well for him, in the end.

      I know it's incredibly unlikely, but what if the Americans alive today were somehow more inept than the ones who were alive a couple of centuries ago? Might it not turn into an hilarious bloodbath?

    18. Re:How Could This Happen... by walllaby · · Score: 1

      When are you guys going to start a revolution with your pea-shooters? I heard that is why you need them: to protect us from a tyrannical government. So...when?

      If it's ever necessary, it will happen the same way it did last time. Citizens with guns, mostly ex-military and led by ex-military, will take military armories on the first day of the war. Military bases are gun-free zones, after all. (Yes, really, a soldier can't even carry his own personal gun on base.)

      Half the militia that fought the British troops in the Battles of Lexington and Concord were exactly the cliche - bunches of dumb, poorly trained hicks all related to one another. But half weren't, and they accomplished something.

      If you don't know US history, it might surprise you that the war started when the governor sent troops to confiscate military-style weapons from the populace. Didn't work out well for him, in the end.

      You can’t hear or see it, but a tear rolled down my cheek as I read this, while the sounds of patriotic drums and flutes played in my head. You also can’t see my salute, but it’s there!

  24. Re:Ignore online abuse at your peril by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Online discourse is very complex.
    In general you have the power to speak your mind, and often without any real consequences, as you are in general separated from the people who disagree with your argument. This separation also prevents proper discourse, undoubtedly for most arguments they are issues and factors that are not taken into account. This is the point of proper discourse, to expand the views given, not necessary change them, but to give a more complete picture.

    So side one giving their opinion without much proper discourse, because opposing ideas are just trolling or just going off and giving their opinion (just like this post that seems to have nothing to do with SWATing, I am getting there I promise). Because of lack of any good counter discussion, this reinforces the idea I am right and they are wrong.

    Now the opposing ideas, even the complete well composed ones, Are often lost in a sea of Trolls. Such as discussion against the GPL in a mist of comments explaining its core writers lack of Personal Hygiene, which has nothing to do for the quality or faults of that particular idea. To the person writing the Pro GPL Argument, You who is writing the counter argument is in the same group of people who are fixated on some unrelated troll. So by extension you are a toll as well.

    Now for the person who had made the counter argument, had their idea dismissed for equally irrational reasons (just because there were other tolls against his idea) is feeling his ideas and contribution where dis-empowered from him. Thus not getting an appropriate discourse, and in general starting the cycle on the other side.

    The feeling of dis-empowerment for some could lead to violence or trickery such as swatting, as a way to feel like they have some power over the person who had tried to take away their power.
    THIS REASON DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!
    But I seem to find much of the problems we have today is from people having a lack of empowerment. Which is different from them always getting their way, but getting respect for their ideas and their contributions.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  25. Google Intermediate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just reading about Google Assistant and thinking this would be great for dealing with stalkers. "Feel you're not getting enough attention? Google Receptionist will call you on a regular basis, soothing those frayed nerves."

  26. Obligatory Mortal Kombat by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    FATALITY

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
    1. Re:Obligatory Mortal Kombat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly why I come here

    2. Re: Obligatory Mortal Kombat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it possible to combine Fatality and Brutality?

      Those games were glitchy as hell I seem to remember Babality combining with Fatality.

    3. Re: Obligatory Mortal Kombat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking redditors coming out of the woodwork.

  27. Was his presentation so bad? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jees, I have been to some really bad presentations over the years but never had the urge to stab the presenter to death.

  28. Easy when you have the power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "stabbed to death minutes after giving a seminar on how to resolve personal disputes on the internet"

    No idea about the real situation here, but I think it is quite imaginable, some people who have power, maybe thinking/believing they are really good at resolving any disputes/arguments, or they know everything better than their employees, w/o ever realizing, it is all because their power, people back down against them, all the time! :-)

    I think any famous blogger in his/her blog is pretty much like a boss/CEO in their own company!
    (They have power to delete anyone's comments, and/or temporarily/permanently ban anyone!)

  29. Re: Ignore online abuse at your peril by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another victim of gun control.

  30. Irony level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Irony level: Asian

  31. Irony level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Asian

  32. What is wrong ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is quite eye-watering to read the comments here - so, a guy gets stabbed to death, and all people here are able to come up with is cheesy jokes? I mean, have a heart; ah, to hell with it - it is worthless to remonstrate with people like that. We need to look no further than to the comments here, to understand what went wrong. Yuck.

  33. Lesson to learn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never post your real name on the damn internet!

  34. It was to be expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nerds are horrible, uncivilized, mysoginist and violent. They barely qualify as people. That repulsive, socially inept, foul-smelling scum is rightfully shunned by society and kept oatracized and marginalized so that it cannot contaminate us. However containment is not enough. Gamergate and the threat coming from the incel movement show that we as a society must take a stronger and proactive stance and eliminate nerdom once and for all.

  35. Ban Knives! (And Comments) by pubwvj · · Score: 0

    Clearly we need to ban knives. No need to repeat all the reasons here that are given for banning guns or free speech...

  36. Really by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of a local murder case decades ago, where a teen had been murdered in a store robbery where he worked, having given a speech in class earlier that week about how to talk one's way out of being murdered in a robbery.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  37. Non clickbaity details by zioncat · · Score: 2

    The suspect is a mentally unstable person who spent all day spamming comment sections of many blogs. The victim didn't really have an interaction with the murderer, he was just one of the victim of spam messages and reported him to admins. Suspect got flamed by some other commenter (not the victim) how internet warrior can't do anything in real life. After further taunting he decided to prove them wrong and randomly chose the victim because he happened to be holding a seminar near his house (the seminar wasn't really about 'how to resolve personal disputes on the internet' and more generally about dealing with multitude of problems in maintaining a blog).

    1. Re:Non clickbaity details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can actually read Japanese and your sources don't back up your story; they're just the superficial details we all know already.
      Is he mentally unstable? Well I suppose everyone who commits murder is, by definition.
      Was he really spamming in the English sense of the word? It's what some news sources say, but I cannot confirm.
      Was he angry because he got reported or something related? Was he in fact angry as such at all? We are told little about his actual motivations.
      He didn't get flamed, he just got the regular ‘o hai keyboard warrior’ type comment that's common on the internet.
      In the following posts he says he's going to act in real life, but we cannot know at this point what he would have done if the discussion hadn't been there. He probably would have done exactly the same thing.
      And it might have been opportune for him that the seminar was near his house, but let's not forget the actual connection between victim and suspect. He didn't stab just a random person.
      Oh and before I forget: The link that you use to back up that the seminar was not really about resolving personal disputes on the internet is dead so we have to take your word for it. But the Wayback Machine has it and if you look at the actual contents you find that dealing with flames, grammar nazis, legal threats, unwanted confessions and all such crap was actually the main part of the seminar.

  38. Civilized Society by SinGunner · · Score: 2

    The gun people will talk about how you "don't need guns to kill people" and miss the point that any single murder in Japan is NATIONAL NEWS on an island where half the population of the US is crammed in a space the size of California. A relatively "interesting" Japanese murder (like this one) frequently ends up GLOBAL NEWS because it's so damn rare.

  39. Ninja's on world stage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well Japan is the land of the Ninja, so one's body is a weapon. That's why flabby American's need an equalizer.

  40. Well... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    That's ONE way of solving personal disputes!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  41. When knives are outlawed... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    ...how the hell will they make sushi?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:When knives are outlawed... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They won't outlaw knives. They'll just stamp serial numbers on them and require them to be stored in restaurants in a locked cabinet. Seriously though, it's probably already illegal to carry anything bigger than a pen knife in your pocket in Japan. Let's see, google google... yeah, you can't legally carry anything over 6cm without a reason, like transporting it to someplace you're going to chop vegetables.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  42. What a sad shame. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad it wasn't APK giving a lecture on HOSTs for security and CowboyNeal doing the stabbing.

  43. Refunds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously, his estate needs to give back all fees charged for his seminars. I mean, I'd want my money back, his seminar content is crap.

  44. Losers would say that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get over yourself and come up with a better argument.

    I see you regularly lose your arguments or have the deplorable opinion. You don't have to win someone over to your side. If the argument/idea is a good one, it sells itself.

    However, losers do hit upon a good idea once in awhile, so we can be in agreement that in this particular instance, we shouldn't be stabbing people. But DO NOT forget, there IS a time when stabbing someone is the correct answer.

  45. ...tards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In America, they're called Republicans and last I checked, you're one of 'em.

    1. Re: ...tards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic and creepy, all in one. Twofer!

  46. gun nuts gonna nut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Logic? You might wanna know which statement you're parsing before you analyse it.

    KILOBYTE is the one who orignally stated that guns would be at this gunfight. Locketine simply carried out Kilo's statement to it's illogical conclusion. If you want to account for assumptions, then you have to account for ALL the assumptions. This is why it is better to not assume at all.

    So there were illogical statements here, but they came from ya boy, Kilobyte. I totally know why too. A simple look at your post history will show that the minute someone brings up guns being bad/dangerous/violent, you swoop in and start talking about how awesome they are and if you don't agree, you'll shoot those who try to take them. Talk about logic.

  47. you have no chance regardless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You apparently haven't lived in any other place than Merica. Tell a Japanese cop to fuck off. Go ahead, I dare ya. They tell you precisely one time to do something, and if you aren't fast enough, they start whipping your ass with thier bare hands or a baton. If they even want a gun, they have to get it out of thier locked car trunk or call someone who has one. They don't care how big you are, they don't care what armaments you are carrying, they will have you disarmed before you realize you done fucked up. Ask the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force in Okinawa Japan.

    Just say it bruh. You skeered.

  48. Re:Where's the Trump poster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drinkypoo posted under his sig in this thread. He's still unhinged.

    Now he'll log out.

  49. peredam suara by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    INTRO : jual rockwool glasswool peredam suara ruangan harga murah ditangerang

    http://peredamsuararuangan.simdif.com

    http://peredamsuara.simdif.com

    http://peredamruangan.simdif.com

    http://peredam.simdif.com

    http://peredam.webs.com

    http://soundproof.simdif.com

    TERIMA KASIH ATAS KUNJUNGANNYA

  50. Zontar The Mindless's crackpot resume by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Going to make more sockpuppets to stalk & troll me with you loon https://slashdot.org/comments.... ?

    Sending me postcards with threats too https://slashdot.org/comments.... ??

    Take your meds mentalcase https://slashdot.org/comments.... & You're a druggie too https://slashdot.org/comments....

    * You're a butthurt loon freak, plain & simple - you did it to yourself, loser... see below for proof.

    APK

    P.S.=> Still trying to live down how I shot you to pieces in the art & science of computing Mr. Butthurt https://slashdot.org/comments.... ?

    How about proving hosts & my program that builds them are useless too https://slashdot.org/comments.... ? ... apk

  51. LMAO - lamest troll bs I ever saw... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The lawsuit, liens or bankruptcy on file = a search @mylife.com idiot & it'd turn up none (no lawsuits/liens/bankruptcy here for me ever) on me & my income's certainly not that either.

    * I don't program professionally anymore (retired 11 yrs. ago from working for others & work for myself instead) so now you look like a fool, nothing more!

    APK

    P.S.=> Of course, most folks KNOW that much about that site - apparently you don't but then again, that's WHY you do what you do by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous troll... apk

  52. ArseHOLEtechnica = losers who stalked me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ArseHOLEtechnica = losers who stalked me (as you do now anonymously unidentifiably) to NTCompatible.com & Windows IT Pro magazine forums to their public dismay in Jeremy Reimer & Jay Little + Jarrett DeAngelis (who posts here on /. until I drove his ass off too) when their websites were REMOVED by their hosting providers in Shaw Canada & CrystalTech (for both email harassing me caught on a tracking ticket + stalking me & posting lies about me on them AFTER I destroyed them both PUBLICLY @ Windows IT Pro on Exchange Servers memory being freed UNHALTING them (which tells you Exchange is HEAVILY POINTER ORIENTED linked list driven, which leads to memory fragmentation that CAN halt a serverware)).

    Jay Little the "self-proclaimed 'EXCHANGE EXPERT'" HAD TO CONCEDE IT from MICROSOFT'S OWN DOCUMENTATION proving it FOR me there (where they as usual stalked me AS YOU ARE NOW AS YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THOSE IDIOTS TOO ) & they can't "ban me" ANYMORE than I can be "banned" here on /. - as nothing stops ME, but me!

    I just left their site after a VERY BRIEF visit in 2001 (finding they are UNDEREDUCATED DO-NOTHING LAZY WANNABE "Fake it Till you Make It" types - shams & "ne'er-do-wells").

    APK

    P.S.=> I can't believe they're STILL "butthurt" after I WHIPPED THEIR ASSES on several fronts & they STARTED IT, but I finished it & ArseHOLETechnica w/ it, publicly (lol)... apk

    1. Re:ArseHOLEtechnica = losers who stalked me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got banned for (a) spamming and then (b) harassing anyone who pointed this out and asked you to stop.

      Then you used a sockpuppet to beg for mercy. It's all right there in black and white, amigo.

      (Remember, folks, anytime that APK says "X did Y", it's about 90% likely that what really happened is that Y did X.)

  53. Facts on Alex McQuown alias Khyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arrest & prison time + probation violation threatening a gov't. official (District Attorney - HOW STUPID ARE YOU?) #1/2 https://www.rapsheets.org/cali...

    #2/2 prison time https://unicourt.com/case/ca-r... (brb in a minute w/ ones out of state of California)

    Guess what DUMBFUCK? Can't SUE me for facts about you I read from LEGAL SOURCES stupid fuck!

    FELONY THREATS to a DA & threats to SUE me repeatedly https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... OR "come visit me" https://slashdot.org/comments.... or "dox" me etc. & WORSE https://slashdot.org/comments.... is that AGAIN with your other EXTORTION, JAILTIME, PROBATION VIOLATION recidivism.

    MORE THREATS TO "kill me" or "end my sanity" https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12199712&cid=56738758/ ? TRY IT you deviant ABNORMAL twisted little COCKSUCKER. It'd be the LAST THING you ever try.

    Offers to sell my address information/dox me https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12275100&cid=56855670/

    * Keep it up like THIS threat of yours @ me AGAIN sweetie https://slashdot.org/comments.... pusscake!

    You'll get ENDED or you'll be in the BUNK w/ "Good Ole' LEROY" soon enough as his Special "Lil' Teddybear" that you OBVIOUSLY deeply MISS, SOON enough BOY, hahahaha!

    Nobody BELIEVES A WORD YOUR DEMENTED ASS SAYS after the above & what you've DIRECTED MY WAY TOO you fucking LITTLE 10lb. PUSSY motherfucker bitch homo https://slashdot.org/comments.... (despite your UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS SUPPORT NET here & there, lol)

    From what I heard about you? YOU ARE A BITCH that TAKES IT RIGHT UP THE ASS, ugh (disgusting/abnormal/DEVIANT/weirdo) AFTER you've been PUMPED UP with "good drugs" (man, even worse - sounds like you SELL it for dope, lol) per https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7892497&cid=50385967/ @ a porn shop as a sexworker (lol) YOU BRAG OF https://slashdot.org/comments.... & FIRED JOB AFTER JOB+ ARREST after ARREST https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... BRAGGING YO A Gangstuh https://slashdot.org/comments.... (lol, punk pussy is more it).

    APK

    P.S.=> Perhaps LIBEL of myself should be amongst your "FINE RECORD" (not) per:

    "NOD32 detects a trojan in APK's HOSTS bullshit." - by Khyber on Saturday August 22, 2015

    VirusTotal & NOD32 SHOW CLEAN IN ITS EXES

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    + MORE LIES

    "he's tying to get your fucking information." - by Khyber on August 22, 2015

    My program doesn't transmit outward!

    TONS more than this on you too on your HUGE tech fuckup record vs. me!

    (Truth about you KILLS you, blame yourself, not I - freak)... apk

    1. Re:Facts on Alex McQuown alias Khyber by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Still waiting on the pedophilia proof, you lying sack of shit.

      Jan A Kowalski
      Age 80+

      PHONE NUMBERS

      (315) 299-8073
      Fixed Voip

      (315) 422-5417
      Landline

      Those who accuse someone really hard of doing something are usually the ones doing it themselves, as proven by the Republican party and Christian ministers and priests. You're Christian, pedophilia in the Abrahamic religions is pretty much a given. So which children are YOU diddling, Mr. n00b of deflection?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  54. Facts on Alex McQuown alias Khyber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arrest & prison time + probation violation threatening a gov't. official (District Attorney - HOW STUPID ARE YOU?) #1/2 https://www.rapsheets.org/cali...

    #2/2 prison time https://unicourt.com/case/ca-r... (brb in a minute w/ ones out of state of California)

    Guess what DUMBFUCK? Can't SUE me for facts about you I read from LEGAL SOURCES stupid fuck!

    FELONY THREATS to a DA & threats to SUE me repeatedly https://yro.slashdot.org/comme... OR "come visit me" https://slashdot.org/comments.... or "dox" me etc. & WORSE https://slashdot.org/comments.... is that AGAIN with your other EXTORTION, JAILTIME, PROBATION VIOLATION recidivism.

    MORE THREATS TO "kill me" or "end my sanity" https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12199712&cid=56738758/ ? TRY IT you deviant ABNORMAL twisted little COCKSUCKER. It'd be the LAST THING you ever try.

    Offers to sell my address information/dox me https://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12275100&cid=56855670/

    * Keep it up like THIS threat of yours @ me AGAIN sweetie https://slashdot.org/comments.... pusscake!

    You'll get ENDED or you'll be in the BUNK w/ "Good Ole' LEROY" soon enough as his Special "Lil' Teddybear" that you OBVIOUSLY deeply MISS, SOON enough BOY, hahahaha!

    Nobody BELIEVES A WORD YOUR DEMENTED ASS SAYS after the above & what you've DIRECTED MY WAY TOO you fucking LITTLE 10lb. PUSSY motherfucker bitch homo https://slashdot.org/comments.... (despite your UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS SUPPORT NET here & there, lol)

    From what I heard about you? YOU ARE A BITCH that TAKES IT RIGHT UP THE ASS, ugh (disgusting/abnormal/DEVIANT/weirdo) AFTER you've been PUMPED UP with "good drugs" (man, even worse - sounds like you SELL it for dope, lol) per https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7892497&cid=50385967/ @ a porn shop as a sexworker (lol) YOU BRAG OF https://slashdot.org/comments.... & FIRED JOB AFTER JOB+ ARREST after ARREST https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... BRAGGING YO A Gangstuh https://slashdot.org/comments.... (lol, punk pussy is more it).

    APK

    P.S.=> Perhaps LIBEL of myself should be amongst your "FINE RECORD" (not) per:

    "NOD32 detects a trojan in APK's HOSTS bullshit." - by Khyber on Saturday August 22, 2015

    VirusTotal & NOD32 SHOW CLEAN IN ITS EXES

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    + MORE LIES

    "he's tying to get your fucking information." - by Khyber on August 22, 2015

    My program doesn't transmit outward!

    TONS more than this on you too on your HUGE tech fuckup record vs. me! 100's...

    (Truth about you KILLS you, blame yourself, not I - freak)... apk

  55. Looks like i need to buy a new... by The123king · · Score: 1

    Irony-O-Meter. This one just pegged itself and exploded

    --
    If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
  56. I use the law 1st but IF it fails me? apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: It's fact & this proves that much (w/ fact) regarding e.g. ArseHOLETechnica https://slashdot.org/comments.... & Zontar The Mindless https://slashdot.org/comments.... whom after his "watch your mailbox" threat I made a report w/ the NY State Police as any good citizen should just in case he "goes postal" (pun intended) which he did send me a postcard after that threat w/ a 'warning' on it, lol...

    * HOWEVER: In my life, have I gotten violent on others? Sure. Admittedly. Case in point 3 yrs. ago I got in NO TROUBLE @ ALL for:

    A dog was going thru my neighborhood attacking other smaller dogs & bit a neighbor's child THEN it murdered a pet of mine & that was it. I followed it (it outran me, big 110 lb. German Shepherd but I saw tracks in the snow, this was Thanksgiving Day no less (what a way to spend it)) & told the owner "You have just killed your dog & broken laws letting it run wild in the city like you have" & I was there with a bat to yes, kill it, but it hid inside their home. So I called the police, they saw it murdered my animal & I asked them my options (legal) & they said go to the dogcatcher, fill out a report & get written testimony from your neighbors etc. (per it attacking kids & other dogs even) - so I did & waited. Meanwhile, the dog shows up LOOSE again & I call the cops (this time I had the owner's name & they ROLLED THEIR EYES - I knew right there he was SCUM & asked them "Off the record - the dogcatcher bs is taking TOO long & the dog's biting kids even - mind if I handle this ANOTHER way?" They said "no problem, off the record" & so quite by chance, I did one day. My then roomie FINALLY replaced the front bearings in his car after I warned him "You like going fast on the highway in the a.m. to work & IF those go, YOU 'go' for real + probably take OTHERS with you"... so it was a Friday & he was happy/proud he did & said "Tell you what - Beer's on me" so we head out to the store in his repaired car to listen to NO GRIND anymore & what do we see? THE DAMN DOG! He tries run it over with his car (he hated it too) & when @ the store WHO DO I SEE but it's owner (waiting for his kid coming from school iirc off city bussing) & I get out and yes POUNDED HIS ASS in front of his kid, his neighbors, etc. (could have done MUCH worse) & told him "Let the dog out AGAIN, you'll think this was a swedish massage" (never happened again + the dog DID end up getting put down eventually)).

    APK

    P.S.=> THAT's how I "handle things". I asked my roomie (after I beat that 30 yr. old DOUCHEBAG's ass & I was 50 @ the time) "I hope you don't think LESS of me" & he (good kid, ex Army & optician on his way to a GREAT future imo) said "I think MORE of you for beating his ass. He had it coming"... apk

  57. Re: All about ArsHOLETechnica & I (fact)... ap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope you cleaned your keyboard and screen after that outburst. Seems somewhat messy.

  58. By Neruos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can never resolve a issue between two or more people. Because you will never know what is in the the other persons head. Science.
    This is why we have laws, but laws are for the law biding and a deterrent of punishment to those who break them.
    So when you remove the fear of punishment or the fear of personal outcome, you can in theory, logically ignore laws and outcomes and do whatever you want, including murder.

    So those 3 sentences above, is what keeps our planet from nuking itself into nothing. Until the day we read mines, you should be proactive in your surrounds and actions if you value your life.

    - Neruos circa 2018.

  59. Wasn't me Khyber/Alex McCLOWN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wasn't I Khyber/Alex McCLOWN - I never call you pedo. I show WHAT you are (from your own mouth) as a homo & felon (via legal sources) https://slashdot.org/comments....

    * LOL! Call that # since you THINK it's a woman... lol! I just called it.

    (You're UPSET w/ me? I didn't cause your WRECKAGE of a "so-called 'life'" - YOU did! Be upset w/ yourself... & you're causing MORE PROBLEMS for yourself by STALKING ME - can't you SEE that?)

    By the way - I don't call myself "Christian" - I just believe in an ALMIGHTY creator spirit (doesn't matter what NAME you assign him, as he calls himself IAM). I also don't believe in MEN abusing him for their OWN purposes (that's what EVIL does - it takes the BEST PARTS OF MEN & twists it against 'em (e.g. "For the Children" stirring men up via stuff like that to do EVIL's BIDDING)).

    APK

    P.S.=> I've known FOOLS like YOU in this life Khyber - you always DO YOURSELVES IN constantly & BLAME others for it: GROW UP, Boy (do something useful w/ your WASTED LIFE)... apk

    1. Re:Wasn't me Khyber/Alex McCLOWN by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Ahh, yes, you keep on deflecting, you poor child. See, now I've got solid proof (yay fucking SUBPOENAS) of your shit.

      You didn't call the number. I know.

      Only took a couple of days to get it.

      I asked for pedophilia proof, you link to something without it as if it were proof of pedophilia. You're obviously brain-damaged and now I've got the proof I need to force yet ANOTHER FINANCIAL JUDGMENT against you, because this is provable libel.

      Are you going to learn? Probably not, so I guess now it's time for some fun times, and extra retirement cash for me. All drained from your supportive family who can't help but bail out the poor mentally-unstable child they're responsible for.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  60. Khyber: Who you're replying to? NOT I... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Khyber: Who you're replying to? It's NOT I (you should know that, don't be stupid - I only show WHAT you are (homo) & felon (via legal sources & YOUR OWN MOUTH now too) - & you're "AnGrY", lol - don't be upset w/ others for YOUR OWN MISTAKES f'ing up YOUR life (nobody else did, you did).

    All 110 lbs. of you "whipped ass", eh? Must've been a prison full of midgets where YOU could be "KING CON", lol - Sure it wasn't "whip ass" as in BIG BLACK LEROY getting in YOUR tight lil' cornhole instead "whipping ass" (like a BUTTER CHURN does, hahahaha)!

    Hehehehe, ok ENOUGH already - you need this & I am in a position to actually HELP you (devil's trying to get into me too now):

    MAINLY since the "kiddy fiddler" crap (I don't like that either) was DIRECTED MY WAY by the SAME troll (he's playing you but he IS right on some things he says about you, but NOT that afaik).

    * What you SHOULD be doing is fixing it instead of STALKING me or trying to BERATE me (your kind, can't, lol). Move on, do something useful &/or constructive on YOUR end instead - works wonders. We've all made mistakes to 1 degree OR another - trick is to pick yourself up off the GROUND & stand TALL again!

    It's hard... & takes effort + time AND a positive attitude & actions. Remember that. It's important. It's just like IF you love someone. There WILL BE HARD TIMES & harsh words/deeds. You HAVE to remember, RIGHT THEN MOST OF ALL, "I love this person". It works.

    APK

    P.S.=> I hope you listened to what I said & honestly, imo? You've the DEVIL in you man, really, Really, REALLY BAD - cast him out, he HAS to obey when you say "In the name of Jesus Christ, Satan GET THEE BEHIND ME" (meaning get away, not ON YOUR BACK like he's got you boy...) - I certainly DO NOT OW YOU THIS but it's my duty as a human being (despite the ribbing above, you NEED it & I can see that much, even for "your kind")... apk

    1. Re:Khyber: Who you're replying to? NOT I... apk by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You claim it's not you yet you quickly posted after I called out the 'other person.'

      You're fucking known across 3DFiles and ArsTechnica (before it was Ars) for making sockpuppet accounts, you lying fucking shitstain. OVER TWENTY FUCKING YEARS OF PROOF.

      Keep lying. Your lies are as transparent as newborn squid skin.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    2. Re:Khyber: Who you're replying to? NOT I... apk by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Still waiting on the liar to come back with any actual evidentiary proof contrary to TWENTY FUCKING YEARS OF INTERNET ARCHIVE.

      Come on, ya racist homophobic lying outdated old wrinkled and weak fuck. Bring it so I can further fuck you online for being a lying sack of shit.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  61. No, exactly what I state happened (fact) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & I blasted ArseHOLETechnica RIGHT up their asse, lol, easily (using their own STUPIDITY against them) per facts I stated. That's all.

    * I also don't tend to hang out w/ a pack of WANNABES that haven't managed ANYTHING @ ALL of good note (none of them had @ that point & really STILL haven't (especially the ones I note by name other than Jarrett DeAngelis WHOM I believe *MIGHT* do something w/ his life (Reimer & Little used him as a pawn & I told him that - I think he listened as he was actually CLASSICALLY EDUCATED in computing & they aren't @ all (Little may be 2 yr. associates but Jarrett was Doctoral or @ least postgrad iirc)). They tried bringing in a PhD candidate vs. me & STILL LOST @ Windows IT Pro lol!

    SO YOU SAY A SOCKPUPPET 'was me' (but not I) too - figures - like I said also - THEY LITERALLY got caught EDITING MY POSTS & IMPERSONATED ME (not a sockpuppet's mine) & I even caught 1 of them under 2 DIFF. USERNAMES on the SAME EMAIL (God & MWNH) & that was PRICELESS & HILARIOUS (lol, "Oh, the sweet memories")

    Yes - big SHAME on "the ArseHOLES" lol but the BIGGER SHAME was me UTTERLY TOTALLY TOTALLING THEM @ Windows IT Pro where yes, they STALKED me to (3dfiles & NTCompatible too - which ANYONE w/ a BRAIN would realize they are in the WRONG for & looking for "payback" AFTER I CRUSHED THEM ON MANY LEVELS REPEATEDLY & apparently in their TWISTED weak brains they wanted to "get me" & ONLY "GOT" THEMSELVES in the end (was classic), lmao & ONLY TO LOSE BADLY, lol) OUTSIDE THEIR "Ars Private Playpen" (where they are helpless & EASY to blow away, lol & they can't EDIT or IMPERSONATE others (big mistake of theirs that STALKING ME only to go "splat" on their faces, lol, PUBLICLY HUMILIATING THEMSELVES in front of the planet...)).

    APK

    P.S.=> THANK YOU for actually HELPING ME PROVE MY POINT... apk

  62. All about ArsHOLETechnica & I (fact)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arstechnica = lstalked me (as you do) to NTCompatible.com & Windows IT Pro magazine to their public dismay in Jeremy Reimer & Jay Little + Jarrett DeAngelis (who posts here on /. until I drove his ass off too) when their websites were REMOVED by their hosting providers in Shaw Canada & CrystalTech (for both email harassing me caught on a tracking ticket + stalking me & posting lies about me on them AFTER I destroyed them both PUBLICLY @ Windows IT Pro on Exchange Servers memory being freed UNHALTING them (which tells you Exchange is HEAVILY POINTER ORIENTED linked list driven, which leads to memory fragmentation that CAN halt a serverware)).

    Jay Little the "self-proclaimed 'EXCHANGE EXPERT'" HAD TO CONCEDE IT from MICROSOFT'S OWN DOCUMENTATION proving it FOR me there (where they as usual stalked me AS YOU ARE NOW AS YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THOSE IDIOTS TOO ) & they can't "ban me" ANYMORE than I can be "banned" here on /. - as nothing stops ME, but me!

    I just left their site after a VERY BRIEF visit in 2001 (finding they are UNDEREDUCATED DO-NOTHING LAZY WANNABE "Fake it Till you Make It" types - shams & "ne'er-do-wells" - & to this day largely STILL nothing more).

    APK

    P.S.=> They also EDITED posts of mine & impersonated me (everyone KNOWS how lame & weak they are worldwide) - put it THIS way: Ask PeterB/Dr.Pizza (Peter Bright) how I ran them off their OWN IRC server & cleared out their 'scheming nest' there in minutes, lol (ole' GOITERMAN frogchin will like the memory, lol (I do))... apk

  63. No, exactly what I state happened (fact) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & I blasted ArseHOLETechnica RIGHT up their arse, lol, easily (using their own STUPIDITY against them) https://slashdot.org/comments.... facts I stated.

    That's all.

    * I also don't tend to hang out w/ a pack of WANNABES that haven't managed ANYTHING @ ALL of good note (none of them had @ that point & really STILL haven't (especially the ones I note by name other than Jarrett DeAngelis WHOM I believe *MIGHT* do something w/ his life - probably HAS by now (Reimer & Little used him as a pawn & I told him that - I think he listened as he was actually CLASSICALLY EDUCATED in computing & they aren't @ all (Little may be 2 yr. associates but Jarrett was Doctoral or @ least postgrad iirc)).

    They tried bringing in a PhD candidate vs. me & STILL LOST @ Windows IT Pro lol!

    SO YOU SAY A SOCKPUPPET 'was me' (but not I) too - figures - like I said also - THEY LITERALLY got caught EDITING MY POSTS & IMPERSONATED ME (not a sockpuppet's mine) & I even caught 1 of them under 2 DIFF. USERNAMES on the SAME EMAIL (God & MWNH) & that was PRICELESS & HILARIOUS (lol, "Oh, the sweet memories")

    Yes - big SHAME on "the ArseHOLES" lol but the BIGGER SHAME was me UTTERLY TOTALLY TOTALLING THEM @ Windows IT Pro where yes, they STALKED me to (3dfiles & NTCompatible too - which ANYONE w/ a BRAIN would realize they are in the WRONG for & looking for "payback" AFTER I CRUSHED THEM ON MANY LEVELS REPEATEDLY & apparently in their TWISTED weak brains they wanted to "get me" & ONLY "GOT" THEMSELVES in the end (was classic), lmao & ONLY TO LOSE BADLY, PUBLICLY, lol) OUTSIDE THEIR "Ars Private Playpen" (where they are helpless & EASY to blow away, lol & they can't EDIT or IMPERSONATE others (big mistake of theirs that STALKING ME only to go "splat" on their faces, lol, "World-Wide SCALE" PUBLICLY HUMILIATING THEMSELVES in front of the planet...)).

    APK

    P.S.=> THANK YOU for actually HELPING ME PROVE MY POINT... apk

  64. Re: All about ArsHOLETechnica & I (fact)... ap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apk, I'm going to give you a piece of advice.

    You've got mania problems. Talk to someone, get some depakote, it will help you to realized that none of us give a shit.

    We don't stalk you, we don't go out of our way to screw with you, we just don't care, you're a recurring joke in our internet lives and that's as far as it goes.

    This persecution complex and paranoia has been going on for almost 20 years, it's time for you to get some help with it. You'll feel a lot better. Depakote.

  65. WRONG: You give more than a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WRONG: You give more than a shit - you saying that proves it. You sound like a voice of 1st hand experience w/ shrinks doping you up too.

    No, no "you don't STALK ME" (bs, what are you doing NOW & for YEARS by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts you lying bullshitter? Do you REALLY THINK you "fool anyone" but YOURSELF, you psycho loon?? Please...)

    APK

    P.S.=> You bring up ArseHOLETechnica & I merely posted FACT anyone can easily verify of me telling it how it REALLY IS vs. your bullshit asshole - & I will NEVER ever just "lay down" vs. you pieces of shit that STALK me - you're the ones w/ the "mania" problems (probably your "fragile egos" (for what I don't know - most of you are "ne'er-do-well" ZEROS in computing, after all, I ask you show YOU DO BETTER vs. my program you always TRY & FAIL to "put down" YET YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT TO SHOW FOR YOUR SORRY do-NOTHING selves - you're BLOWHARD windbags)... apk

    1. Re: WRONG: You give more than a shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apk, I seriously don't even know what the hell you're talking about.

      I'm just some guy on Slashdot telling you that your paranoia is seriously out of control.

      Yeah, I see a psychiatrist. Yeah, people in my family have serious mania problems that cause extreme paranoia and delusions.

      No, I don't give a shit about you, except as far as I hate to see people suffer. You're obviously suffering, you're obviously unhappy or you wouldn't go on these giant tirades every time anyone searches your name.

      I don't care if you get help, it's just something that I recognize, and being a decent human being I offered you advice instead of just taunting you. I really don't care what you do with it, I'm not going to try to argue with an adult man about getting help.

      If you really want to keep doing this, screaming at ghosts and constantly thinking everyone is it to get you, well, you right ahead. Doesn't bother me, and I won't give it a second thought

  66. Apparently you DO give a shit, or... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: ... You wouldn't be here bs'ing me more (lol). Unlike you, I need no shrink you admit seeing. That said, I don't take advice from "touched in the head" folks - ok?

    * Suffer? No, NO Senor - you UNIDENTIFIABLE ANONYMOUS trolls ARE the 'ghosts' you speak BUT you're like a COMEDY SHOW to me & BEST PART?

    You always defeat yourselves FOR ME, lol - you end up making ME look GOOD!

    APK

    P.S.=> ... & yourselves QUITE the opposite... apk

  67. Stabbed with a by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    Knife of Irony