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.

Comments

He was good, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: He was good, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

And effective!

The personal dispute was in fact resolved.

Re:He was good, but...

[Oswald McWeany]

...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.

Re:He was good, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[Anonymous Coward]

You see that Alanis? That's irony.

Probably not a good product he was selling...

[gweihir]

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

I must have read this right when it came out.

[grep -v '.*' *]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Pinky's Brain]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[turp182]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[cascadingstylesheet]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Pinky's Brain]

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

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[turp182]

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

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[ScentCone]

What the hell is wrong with people?

Knives.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Anonymous Coward]

*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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[turp182]

I also dropped the price...

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[TWX]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Green Mountain Bot]

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

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[null etc.]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[BronsCon]

Then you never learn.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[jeff4747]

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....

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[jeff4747]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[lgw]

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

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[lgw]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[UnknownSoldier]

> 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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Zontar The Mindless]

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

Re: I must have read this right when it came out.

[Ogive17]

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

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

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Zontar The Mindless]

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.)

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[denzacar]

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!

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[tlhIngan]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[lgw]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[djinn6]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Darinbob]

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".

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Green Mountain Bot]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[squiggleslash]

You don't watch the news much do you?

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Green Mountain Bot]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[thegarbz]

Make them come over to your side instead.

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

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[jeff4747]

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.

Re: I must have read this right when it came out.

[Einzelhaft]

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

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[lgw]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[angel'o'sphere]

Why did some asshole mod this "troll"?

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[angel'o'sphere]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Green Mountain Bot]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Bryansix]

Can you ship to Sweden?

Funniest thing I read all day. Thanks for that.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[UnknownSoldier]

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

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[HornWumpus]

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').

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Zontar The Mindless]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Peter P Peters]

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...

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[ayesnymous]

> 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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Peter P Peters]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[darth.hunterix]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[skovnymfe]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Cederic]

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.

Re: I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.)

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

...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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Cederic]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Cederic]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Cederic]

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?

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[angel'o'sphere]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Zontar The Mindless]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[Cederic]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[K10W]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[ebvwfbw]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re: I must have read this right when it came out.

[Einzelhaft]

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.

Re: I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[jaminJay]

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."

Re: I must have read this right when it came out.

[Einzelhaft]

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

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[brantondaveperson]

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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[AmiMoJo]

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

Re: I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

"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.

Re:I must have read this right when it came out.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re: I must have read this right when it came out.

[Einzelhaft]

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.

seminar on resolving internet issues?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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)....

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[The Cynical Critic]

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.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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?

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[oobayly]

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...

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[Reaper9889]

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.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[stephanruby]

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.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[fazig]

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'.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[cascadingstylesheet]

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).

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[Kokuyo]

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.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[Headw1nd]

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.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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...!

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[Typing_Ptarmigan]

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

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[angel'o'sphere]

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.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[angel'o'sphere]

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.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[ayesnymous]

> 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*.

Re:seminar on resolving internet issues?

[Zontar The Mindless]

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

Re:Ignore online abuse at your peril

[Calydor]

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

Worst argument ever?

[The Cynical Critic]

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...

Re:Worst argument ever?

[pD-brane]

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).

Re:Worst argument ever?

[cascadingstylesheet]

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.

Re:Worst argument ever?

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Worst argument ever?

[HalAtWork]

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

Re:Worst argument ever?

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:Worst argument ever?

[ayesnymous]

> 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*.

Re:Worst argument ever?

[Peter P Peters]

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.

The tally is up to 3 now...

[fibonacci8]

Relevant XKCD

Re:The tally is up to 3 now...

[fibonacci8]

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.

Re:The tally is up to 3 now...

[Solandri]

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.

Re:The tally is up to 3 now...

[drew_kime]

Relevant XKCD

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

Re:The tally is up to 3 now...

[angel'o'sphere]

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

Re:The tally is up to 3 now...

[HornWumpus]

Halfway in elevator. Messy.

The illusion of safety

[MikeRT]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[BadDreamer]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[butzwonker]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[sinij]

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?

Re:The illusion of safety

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

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'

Re:The illusion of safety

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[Zontar The Mindless]

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

Re:The illusion of safety

[butzwonker]

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!

Re:The illusion of safety

[ScentCone]

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

Re:The illusion of safety

[Rip!ey]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[MobyDisk]

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

Re:The illusion of safety

[bill_mcgonigle]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[strikethree]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[BadDreamer]

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

I'll give that up in a heartbeat.

Re:The illusion of safety

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[Notabadguy]

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."

Re:The illusion of safety

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[BadDreamer]

Yet I have both.

Funny how that works.

Re:The illusion of safety

[lgw]

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?

Re:The illusion of safety

[lgw]

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!

Re:The illusion of safety

[BadDreamer]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[BadDreamer]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[lgw]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[BadDreamer]

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!

Re:The illusion of safety

[tsqr]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[eaglesrule]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[grep -v '.*' *]

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.)

Re:The illusion of safety

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[Notabadguy]

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.

Re:The illusion of safety

[walllaby]

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.

Re: From the irony-at-its-worst dept

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Point proven?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Any word on whether the victim was heard gasping "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" as he was rushed off for treatment?

APK

[110010001000]

That is why I never mess with you people online. You are all my friends.

Re:APK

[houghi]

The friends of my enemies are my enemies, so you are lucky I do not have any.

Re:APK

[110010001000]

You don't have any friends? Or enemies? Or friends of enemies? Either way, everyone likes me.

Re:APK

[The-Ixian]

I don't like you! ...... Ok.... Fine.... I like you....

YOU HAD ONE JOB

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You had one job...
https://twitter.com/RomulusJoh...

Lunatics on world stage

[Martin S.]

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...

Re:Lunatics on world stage

[KiloByte]

Where the difference between dead victim and barely surviving assailant was that in the US you are allowed means to defend yourself.

Re: Lunatics on world stage

[locketine]

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.

Re: Lunatics on world stage

[drinkypoo]

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!

Re:Lunatics on world stage

[KiloByte]

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.

Re:Lunatics on world stage

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Lunatics on world stage

[lgw]

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?

Re:Lunatics on world stage

[thegarbz]

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.

Re:Lunatics on world stage

[angel'o'sphere]

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 ...

Re:Lunatics on world stage

[lgw]

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.

Hey ladies!

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

For your information, I give seminars on how to avoid crazy sex with multiple gorgeous women.

Hint hint...

Re:Hey ladies!

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, your are still getting stabbed. The only thing changes is by whom.

Re:Hey ladies!

[bill_mcgonigle]

There goes Roscoe again, out to get Crazy Cooter.

Re:Hey ladies!

[The-Ixian]

Well.... you are going to get the exact opposite of that:

Not avoiding sex with a single ugly man... enjoy!

Re:Hey ladies!

[gosand]

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.

What does this incident teach us?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never go to the toilet without you Katana.

Wrong assumption

[sinij]

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.

Re:Wrong assumption

[PPH]

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.

Re:Wrong assumption

[sinij]

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.

Re:Wrong assumption

[sinij]

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.

Re:Ignore online abuse at your peril

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:How Could This Happen...

[rally2xs]

When the time is right.

A generalized gun confiscation would probably make it happen. A coup against the elected gov't might, too.

Obligatory Mortal Kombat

[DontBeAMoran]

FATALITY

Re:How Could This Happen...

[rally2xs]

It would be a horror. Millions dead. You wouldn't enjoy it. We are doing everything we can to avoid it.

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[cayenne8]

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

Re:How Could This Happen...

[frank_adrian314159]

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.

Re:How Could This Happen...

[jeff4747]

Silly Slashdot poster. This tyrannical government is doing what gun owners want!

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[drinkypoo]

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?

Really

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

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.

Re:How Could This Happen...

[lgw]

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.

Non clickbaity details

[zioncat]

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).

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[SinGunner]

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.

Civilized Society

[SinGunner]

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.

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[SinGunner]

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.

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[SinGunner]

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.

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[cayenne8]

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.

Well...

[Locke2005]

That's ONE way of solving personal disputes!

When knives are outlawed...

[Locke2005]

...how the hell will they make sushi?

Re:When knives are outlawed...

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[djinn6]

I think "caught" is the key word.

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

Re:take note

[Zontar The Mindless]

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

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[datavirtue]

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.

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[ScepticOne]

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

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[SinGunner]

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

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[Bryansix]

Do you call everyone you disagree with an idiot?

Re:take note

[Khyber]

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.

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[SinGunner]

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/...

Re:How Could This Happen...

[toadlife]

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?

Re:How Could This Happen...

[toadlife]

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.

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[angel'o'sphere]

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.

Re: take note

[Khyber]

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.)

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[another_twilight]

And so we return to irony

Re:How Could This Happen...

[Zontar The Mindless]

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.

Looks like i need to buy a new...

[The123king]

Irony-O-Meter. This one just pegged itself and exploded

Re:Facts on Alex McQuown alias Khyber

[Khyber]

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?

Re: take note

[Khyber]

"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

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[Bryansix]

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.

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[drinkypoo]

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...

Re: Okamoto Killed in Fukuoka

[KingBenny]

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

Re:How Could This Happen...

[walllaby]

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!

Stabbed with a

[Stubbyfingers]

Knife of Irony

Re:Wasn't me Khyber/Alex McCLOWN

[Khyber]

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.

Re:Khyber: Who you're replying to? NOT I... apk

[Khyber]

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.

Re:Khyber: Who you're replying to? NOT I... apk

[Khyber]

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.