This is about people being jackasses and saying extremely mean things
Oh, no! Anything but that! That's not subjective at all!
acting like jerks
That's completely objective.
and being classic trolls on top of making death threats here.
Right.
This has nothing to do with "free speech"
To me, it certainly does. Of course, this isn't the first time people have tried to claim that anything they don't like isn't "free speech."
Seriously, you have got to be one of the most vile souls I can possibly imagine just to think this kind of thing is remotely acceptable.
I suspect you haven't met many "vile souls," (whatever the hell that subjective garbage even means) then.
In my opinion, people who want safety above all else are the vile ones.
This is taking people who are acting like a bunch of criminals because they are criminals and violating ethical standards that would not be tolerated at all if you were standing face to face with them.
Criminals? Do you think I care about laws I believe are morally wrong? As for ethical standards, well, I don't see how that's relevant at all. I don't see how the actions people would take if these things were said to their faces are relevant, either.
The choice here is to behave yourself and actually realize that what you type on a forum or in a game might actually have some real-world consequences, where real people can be hurt and hurt profoundly.
That's extremely vague. I have an idea I believe is better: Stop being so easily offended.
Geez, I'm not supporting death squads or for even broad monitoring of network activity.
And yet, to me, you're simply anti-freedom.
Freedom of speech doesn't give you the freedom to hurt people, say things that are patently false, and to besmirch the reputation of another person.
It does to me, even if I choose not to partake in those activities. And really, what does and doesn't "hurt" a person differs from person to person.
This doesn't require new laws to be passed, but rather to have existing laws be enforced in spite of the fact it is an on-line environment.
Oh, I'm quite aware that there are many laws I disagree with on the books.
By the way, don't bother trying to say that I would feel differently were I in a different situation than I am currently in, because that's completely irrelevant, even if true.
Although, personally, I think its a whole lot less stressful to not worry about things that don't really impact me, always have been and always will be. On that note, I'm going to e-mail and call friends to arrange a barbecue because the weather is really quite spectacular today, and I don't give two shits what spooky government agency might be storing my call records or scanning those e-mails.
I'm sure the government loves people like you and thanks you for making it so easy to violate people's rights.
What kind of callous individual are you to think that it is acceptable to be promoting somebody else's death?
How many kinds are there? What are my available choices here?
This kind of cyber bulling can and should be criminally prosecuted with manslaughter charges pressed against those who participate in this kind of action.
I disagree. I think rather than resorting to censorship and/or scrapping freedom of speech (Don't bother with fire in a crowded theater analogies; I disagree with that sort of logic too.), we should just accept that casualties sometimes happen. I don't think molesting people at airports is a valid response to terrorism, and I would think that way even if the TSA were effective.
"Blaming the victim" isn't always what it seems. Sometimes the victim really is an imbecile (though that doesn't mean the one who victimized them should be let go)... but I don't agree that they are in this case.
If violent language is happening after people leave their virtual worlds, then there's some merit to accusations that violent behaviour or actions can also be carried over to real world.
Which usually seems to entail memorizing loads of material and then mindlessly spewing it back on pieces of paper that claim to be able to evaluate how much of the material you understand.
If these illegal searches were done deliberately there should be some accountability (even though there won't be).
Shouldn't there be accountability even if they weren't deliberate? I don't see violating people's rights as a laughing matter.
Actually, we have to expect this sort of things. This is what happens when you give the government such broad powers, which is why I believe we need to destroy everything (programs, organizations, etc.) that enables them to collect this information.
There might be more choices, but if I were presenting with only those two choices, I would pick the former. I think the point of presenting things that way is to show that one believes freedom to be far more important than safety.
This is not evidence of a vast conspiracy to deprive you of your rights.
There is no "vast conspiracy," but there are people in the government who knowingly and openly try to strip us of our rights. Why else do you think all of this garbage (TSA, Patriot Act, free speech zones, all sorts of spying, etc.) exists in the first place? No one important is stupid enough to not see how these things infringe upon our rights, so they can't claim ignorance.
It's evidence of people failing to do things properly.
Of course. That's what happens when you give humans too much power (along with malicious abuses).
In a purely logical argument, privacy is an emotional aspect, which has no weight in any logical argument
That makes no sense. There is nothing illogical about desiring privacy anymore than there is anything illogical about desiring money or desiring to be efficient.
If you bother to take a deep dive into reality, there are tens-of-thousands of long-tail websites that rely on advertising to remain online and perhaps even pay salaries.
And if some of them vanish, I'll simply stop going to them. This isn't nearly as complicated as some people seem to make it out to be.
by breaking the social contract
I signed no contract; they're the ones who made their website available and made attempt to block me from accessing it. All I'm doing is blocking certain types of content locally.
What good would that do them? If we make it so that they need footage in order to be believed, not having the footage just means their accusations will be tossed out.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about people being jackasses and saying extremely mean things
Oh, no! Anything but that! That's not subjective at all!
acting like jerks
That's completely objective.
and being classic trolls on top of making death threats here.
Right.
This has nothing to do with "free speech"
To me, it certainly does. Of course, this isn't the first time people have tried to claim that anything they don't like isn't "free speech."
Seriously, you have got to be one of the most vile souls I can possibly imagine just to think this kind of thing is remotely acceptable.
I suspect you haven't met many "vile souls," (whatever the hell that subjective garbage even means) then.
In my opinion, people who want safety above all else are the vile ones.
This is taking people who are acting like a bunch of criminals because they are criminals and violating ethical standards that would not be tolerated at all if you were standing face to face with them.
Criminals? Do you think I care about laws I believe are morally wrong? As for ethical standards, well, I don't see how that's relevant at all. I don't see how the actions people would take if these things were said to their faces are relevant, either.
The choice here is to behave yourself and actually realize that what you type on a forum or in a game might actually have some real-world consequences, where real people can be hurt and hurt profoundly.
That's extremely vague. I have an idea I believe is better: Stop being so easily offended.
Geez, I'm not supporting death squads or for even broad monitoring of network activity.
And yet, to me, you're simply anti-freedom.
Freedom of speech doesn't give you the freedom to hurt people, say things that are patently false, and to besmirch the reputation of another person.
It does to me, even if I choose not to partake in those activities. And really, what does and doesn't "hurt" a person differs from person to person.
This doesn't require new laws to be passed, but rather to have existing laws be enforced in spite of the fact it is an on-line environment.
Oh, I'm quite aware that there are many laws I disagree with on the books.
By the way, don't bother trying to say that I would feel differently were I in a different situation than I am currently in, because that's completely irrelevant, even if true.
This sort of thing seems to work for bankers...
It's so obvious that we fail to heed that warning every single time!
Although, personally, I think its a whole lot less stressful to not worry about things that don't really impact me, always have been and always will be. On that note, I'm going to e-mail and call friends to arrange a barbecue because the weather is really quite spectacular today, and I don't give two shits what spooky government agency might be storing my call records or scanning those e-mails.
I'm sure the government loves people like you and thanks you for making it so easy to violate people's rights.
The fact that the situation could be worse doesn't really improve things.
Police put undercovers out on the street for prostitution stings all the time.
The government is corrupt. What else is new?
You thought they were and if they had been you would have done it.
That seems impossible to know.
What kind of callous individual are you to think that it is acceptable to be promoting somebody else's death?
How many kinds are there? What are my available choices here?
This kind of cyber bulling can and should be criminally prosecuted with manslaughter charges pressed against those who participate in this kind of action.
I disagree. I think rather than resorting to censorship and/or scrapping freedom of speech (Don't bother with fire in a crowded theater analogies; I disagree with that sort of logic too.), we should just accept that casualties sometimes happen. I don't think molesting people at airports is a valid response to terrorism, and I would think that way even if the TSA were effective.
Besides, it has been criminally prosecuted.
And?
Now you're just rationalizing.
By saying he's rationalizing, you're rationalizing.
Are they really that easy to upset?
"Blaming the victim" isn't always what it seems. Sometimes the victim really is an imbecile (though that doesn't mean the one who victimized them should be let go)... but I don't agree that they are in this case.
Heck, there have been people who have been killed or at least forced (from their perspective) into suicide.
The minuscule minority, you mean?
If violent language is happening after people leave their virtual worlds, then there's some merit to accusations that violent behaviour or actions can also be carried over to real world.
It's highly unlikely that there is any merit.
For that as a kid I had to be very good student
Which usually seems to entail memorizing loads of material and then mindlessly spewing it back on pieces of paper that claim to be able to evaluate how much of the material you understand.
If these illegal searches were done deliberately there should be some accountability (even though there won't be).
Shouldn't there be accountability even if they weren't deliberate? I don't see violating people's rights as a laughing matter.
Actually, we have to expect this sort of things. This is what happens when you give the government such broad powers, which is why I believe we need to destroy everything (programs, organizations, etc.) that enables them to collect this information.
There might be more choices, but if I were presenting with only those two choices, I would pick the former. I think the point of presenting things that way is to show that one believes freedom to be far more important than safety.
This is not evidence of a vast conspiracy to deprive you of your rights.
There is no "vast conspiracy," but there are people in the government who knowingly and openly try to strip us of our rights. Why else do you think all of this garbage (TSA, Patriot Act, free speech zones, all sorts of spying, etc.) exists in the first place? No one important is stupid enough to not see how these things infringe upon our rights, so they can't claim ignorance.
It's evidence of people failing to do things properly.
Of course. That's what happens when you give humans too much power (along with malicious abuses).
- Internet - see TV, gives people false sense of community
The only True Sense of Community is what I say it is.
Will people really "age out" of following the major professional and collegiate sport leagues over time?
I sure hope so.
In general wrong and illegal are the same thing
That's a matter of personal opinion.
because no one will be able to decide what is wrong unless it's defined that way.
Of course they would be able to. What, you think people lack opinions?
ITT: Neckbeards who live to whine about their imagined rights to privacy
Yes, they're imaginary. Who needs rights anyway?
In a purely logical argument, privacy is an emotional aspect, which has no weight in any logical argument
That makes no sense. There is nothing illogical about desiring privacy anymore than there is anything illogical about desiring money or desiring to be efficient.
If you bother to take a deep dive into reality, there are tens-of-thousands of long-tail websites that rely on advertising to remain online and perhaps even pay salaries.
And if some of them vanish, I'll simply stop going to them. This isn't nearly as complicated as some people seem to make it out to be.
by breaking the social contract
I signed no contract; they're the ones who made their website available and made attempt to block me from accessing it. All I'm doing is blocking certain types of content locally.
What good would that do them? If we make it so that they need footage in order to be believed, not having the footage just means their accusations will be tossed out.
I don't know and don't care. As far as I'm concerned, it's not our job to be the world's police force, and in fact, I think it's wrong to try to be.
Look, I get what you are saying. But freedom is useless if crime and terror hit a certain level.
I don't think freedom is ever useless. Now, enjoy being groped at airports.