So when the guy who calls the police claims to have killed one hostage already and is talking about burning down the building before committing suicide, the default response should be "I don't believe you"? This does not strike me as a good idea.
A hitman and his client are equally guilty: this legal principle goes back thousands of years, and should apply here as well. If a prosecutor refuses to charge the hitman (i.e. the officer), that's a serious problem that needs to be fixed. But refusing to charge the client (i.e. the swatter) just to protest not charging the hitman is counterproductive. Swatting is attempted murder, and swatters should have the book thrown at them.
This is a serious problem and should not be the case. SWATting SHOULD be nothing more than a prank, if only the United States Police Forces weren't more on guard and over reactive than deployed United States military forces
Even then, it should be considered a felony abuse of law enforcement resources, resulting in prison time on a first conviction. It is not harmless under any circumstances, and it should not be considered a mere "prank" by any reasonable person.
When you know that this kind of situation can result, and you disregard the risk to do it anyway just because it amuses you, you take on a share of the blame. The SWATter is no less a murderer than the triggerman, or anyone else who uses an assassin to do his dirty work.
Claris Emailer on desktop was the first client I ever really liked. PowerMail was a good substitute, but my Mac days are behind me, so I had to leave that behind too.
Mailbox on mobile was probably my favorite client of all time, though. Probably the only time I was ever really good at e-mail, and then Dropbox went and killed it.
I'd honestly just rather see him piss off the wrong person and get himself put out of all our misery. Swatting is attempted murder. It's time we treated it as such.
Here's a hint. When one woman puts a wall between you and her, that's her problem. When all women put walls between themselves and you, that's your problem. We have no reason to think that the woman in the article has ever interacted with the poster I responded to, so we must conclude his bitterness was directed at women in general. Thus, he's a creep.
I understand that you'll probably take some pride and find some validation in being modded up here.
I actually prefer the down-mods. They're how I know I'm striking nerves.
But consider who are agreeing with you: nerds. Nerds who have never been successful with women.
Well, nerds are this site's core target audience. Are you admitting that you don't belong here?
But "nerds who have never been successful with women"? Man, I remember my own unsuccessful phase. I was a total creep, just like you and your fellow foreveralones, and for many of the same reasons. I wasn't as far along the path of bitterness, but I was on it. This was a long time ago, before/r9k/ or even the red pill, but you'd have recognized me.
What changed? Well, I did, but more to the point, someone found a way to force me to stop ignoring the truth. And even now, decades later, I still call that the worst day of my life. I mean, think about it: all those years of hating your ostracizers, lumping them in with the bullies, and then yoy find out the ostracizers were right all along? That's going to suck for anybody.
But the funny thing about the worst day of your life is that it stops getting worse. The results were almost as quick as they were dramatic. The bullying stopped within weeks, the ostracism stopped within months. Women started to notice, and in a year I had my first girlfriend, all without any of that PUA garbage (the only thing any PUA ever said that is not bullshit is that rejection is not worth your fear). Nowadays I'm happily married. And all I ever really had to do was listen. The rest followed from there.
So they'll agree with you, because it's comforting while still hitting their deepest fear (and reality for most): sex being inaccessible.
Ah, but I'm not saying sex is inaccessible. Quite the opposite. Yes, I'm saying that women can sense that sex with you is a bad idea, and this is your fault, but I'm saying that you can change all that. And you can do it without elaborate acts or training regimes, because phoniness is another kind of creepiness so those things are actually counterproductive. I'm not asking you to become someone else; I'm only asking you to grow.
For men who are actually successful with women it's obvious that the guy you are replying to is absolutely correct in everything he said
Then why haven't you been successful with women? Why have things only been failure after failure for, despite your supposedly doing everything right?
This is the pinnacle of sexism of the left. Have no argument against what a man says? Attack his social status and be praised for doing so.
Dude, they're called creepshots for a reason. They're taken by creeps, for creeps, and the fan community openly embraces this. What exactly did you expect?
The left is not about the truth, or argumentation, or the benefit of society. The left has moved away from liberalism long ago. Today, the left is about gaining control for the left. Facts that conflict don't matter. Argumentation doesn't matter. Even being hypocritical doesn't matter. Only group cohesion.
The tribe is absolute. You've made one very flawed assumption: I'm not a leftist. I don't claim all paths are equally true, or that all feelings are valid, or that all people deserve protection. To me, you are not an exception to any rules, nor do you represent an inconsistency in my worldview. You're merely the worst of the worst, and perhaps the only threat that warrants this particular kind of harshness. Casting you out is a civic duty.
Here's a hint: it's not your looks. You just can't hide it. If you could stand to do what that takes, you wouldn't need to. Which isn't to say that you'll never be non-creepy; it just means that you'll first have to recognize your own need to change and grow as a person.
When you seek to destroy people, you lose any claim to protection: you become the thing people need protectiob from. Nothing but a common bully, who deserves what all bullies deserve.
The Internet was built by people who didn't understand the difference between ostracism and bullying. Neither did anybody else at the time, and if anything, people struggle even harder to tell them apart nowadays. This lack of understanding causes terrible damage in all sorts of ways, most of which are beyond the scope of this thread, buy I'll point to Geek Social Fallacy #1 ("Ostracizers are evil") as one of the major factors behind what happened next.
Essentially, the Internet has no effective way to ostracize people because it was created by people who mistook it for bullying. But as a result, it is being taken over by people who really, really need to be ostracized, and who often are in offline contexts. They come online because it's easier to escape off to The Great Enabler rather than confront the reasons nobody wants them around, but the latter is what they really need to be doing. And we have no way to force them into it now.
Even if I wanted to support such a thing, I would need to see some evidence that anyone is interested in it. Near as I can tell, no one is. Certainly there are no movements of any significance; out of the seven billion people on this planet I suspect there are probably a few isolated individuals, but nothing is gaining any traction. All you've got is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that, although it's older than Nazism as we know it, inspired them so heavily that it's basically theirs now.
And the new definition is anyone that disagrees with you right?
Not at all. Pretty much the only thing you have to do to not be a Nazi is oppose the genocide or subjugation of other peoples, and likewise oppose separatism along the same lines (which in practice inevitably amounts to the same thing). As long as you fit that criteria, you're basically in the clear as far as being a Nazi goes.
After all, you can't be a true SJW without a crusade to fight.
I see very little justice at all in the SJWs' definition of "social justice". They're still better people to be around than creeps like you, though.
You are a liberal aren't you? I ask because the level of idiocy you just displayed.... I give up..
As I've said before, I don't think anyone to the left of Orrin Hatch could ever mistake me for a liberal.
The total body count for Communism is indeed quite high, but it fails to take into account the fact that they've had a lot longer to do it, and much greater resources at their disposal. The only reason the Nazis' count isn't higher is that they ran out of time: given a larger empire and several decades, there can be little doubt that they'd have done far worse.
Dammit; I'm trying to remember the name of the fallacy where disagreeing with A supposedly means that B is good. You and your so-called friends have been spewing it all over the place. I am not attempting to claim that Communism is remotely acceptable. I'm merely pointing outthat there are things even worse than Communism, and, well, you're it.
You do. You couldn't even get through a list of six points without mentioning it outright three times, and you masked it badly in several others.
I just state it's a thing.
And that is why you fail. It is not a thing, and it only takes a few minutes looking over the data to see that.
And just because you think people and their culture and ways and soverign rule and what not is worth preserving doesn't mean you have to kill anyone whatsoever.
Sure it does, the next time "your people" arbitrarily decide need some "living space". This has already happened whenever you or your ideological predecessors have ever taken power. And you've thrown your lot in with people who will do this again if given the chance. That makes you one of them.
Besides, why would anyone expect any people's "culture" and "ways", even their own, to last unchanging for all time? We all have so much to learn from each other, and we are at our best when we do so. As this happens, it isn't just natural for cultures to shift, and grow together, and eventually merge; it's frankly surprising thag anyone would expect otherwise. The culture you demand be locked into stasis is itself a result, in no small part, of many iterations of this exact process. It's how we work, it's what we do.
And this is not to say that immigration should be uncontrolled, nor that the controls should be recklessly loose. Every nation has, and legitimately needs, the right to say who can and cannot come in. But you have already stated that "biological similarity" factors into your goals for this control, and that pretty much invalidates your whole viewpoint. I am no liberal, to say that all viewpoints are equally valid: false paths exist, and yours is the most false.
Slashdot Mirror
So when the guy who calls the police claims to have killed one hostage already and is talking about burning down the building before committing suicide, the default response should be "I don't believe you"? This does not strike me as a good idea.
Besides a few libtards like me on /. bitching about it I've seen zero discussion about what got us to this point.
Way to out yourself as a fake liberal. Go back to /v/, creep.
A hitman and his client are equally guilty: this legal principle goes back thousands of years, and should apply here as well. If a prosecutor refuses to charge the hitman (i.e. the officer), that's a serious problem that needs to be fixed. But refusing to charge the client (i.e. the swatter) just to protest not charging the hitman is counterproductive. Swatting is attempted murder, and swatters should have the book thrown at them.
This is a serious problem and should not be the case. SWATting SHOULD be nothing more than a prank, if only the United States Police Forces weren't more on guard and over reactive than deployed United States military forces
Even then, it should be considered a felony abuse of law enforcement resources, resulting in prison time on a first conviction. It is not harmless under any circumstances, and it should not be considered a mere "prank" by any reasonable person.
When you know that this kind of situation can result, and you disregard the risk to do it anyway just because it amuses you, you take on a share of the blame. The SWATter is no less a murderer than the triggerman, or anyone else who uses an assassin to do his dirty work.
Didn't know him personally, but much respect.
Claris Emailer on desktop was the first client I ever really liked. PowerMail was a good substitute, but my Mac days are behind me, so I had to leave that behind too.
Mailbox on mobile was probably my favorite client of all time, though. Probably the only time I was ever really good at e-mail, and then Dropbox went and killed it.
I'd honestly just rather see him piss off the wrong person and get himself put out of all our misery. Swatting is attempted murder. It's time we treated it as such.
Here's a hint. When one woman puts a wall between you and her, that's her problem. When all women put walls between themselves and you, that's your problem. We have no reason to think that the woman in the article has ever interacted with the poster I responded to, so we must conclude his bitterness was directed at women in general. Thus, he's a creep.
I think he means the wall women put try to put between themselves and him when he's been creeping on them.
I understand that you'll probably take some pride and find some validation in being modded up here.
I actually prefer the down-mods. They're how I know I'm striking nerves.
But consider who are agreeing with you: nerds. Nerds who have never been successful with women.
Well, nerds are this site's core target audience. Are you admitting that you don't belong here?
But "nerds who have never been successful with women"? Man, I remember my own unsuccessful phase. I was a total creep, just like you and your fellow foreveralones, and for many of the same reasons. I wasn't as far along the path of bitterness, but I was on it. This was a long time ago, before /r9k/ or even the red pill, but you'd have recognized me.
What changed? Well, I did, but more to the point, someone found a way to force me to stop ignoring the truth. And even now, decades later, I still call that the worst day of my life. I mean, think about it: all those years of hating your ostracizers, lumping them in with the bullies, and then yoy find out the ostracizers were right all along? That's going to suck for anybody.
But the funny thing about the worst day of your life is that it stops getting worse. The results were almost as quick as they were dramatic. The bullying stopped within weeks, the ostracism stopped within months. Women started to notice, and in a year I had my first girlfriend, all without any of that PUA garbage (the only thing any PUA ever said that is not bullshit is that rejection is not worth your fear). Nowadays I'm happily married. And all I ever really had to do was listen. The rest followed from there.
So they'll agree with you, because it's comforting while still hitting their deepest fear (and reality for most): sex being inaccessible.
Ah, but I'm not saying sex is inaccessible. Quite the opposite. Yes, I'm saying that women can sense that sex with you is a bad idea, and this is your fault, but I'm saying that you can change all that. And you can do it without elaborate acts or training regimes, because phoniness is another kind of creepiness so those things are actually counterproductive. I'm not asking you to become someone else; I'm only asking you to grow.
For men who are actually successful with women it's obvious that the guy you are replying to is absolutely correct in everything he said
Then why haven't you been successful with women? Why have things only been failure after failure for, despite your supposedly doing everything right?
These are pictures of these people out in public places, dressing how they chose to dress and often not even showing faces.
This is irrelevant. Failing to understand this is a large part of what makes you so creepy.
That contraption you built out of pillows and a fleshlight doesn't count, you know.
This is the pinnacle of sexism of the left. Have no argument against what a man says? Attack his social status and be praised for doing so.
Dude, they're called creepshots for a reason. They're taken by creeps, for creeps, and the fan community openly embraces this. What exactly did you expect?
The left is not about the truth, or argumentation, or the benefit of society. The left has moved away from liberalism long ago. Today, the left is about gaining control for the left. Facts that conflict don't matter. Argumentation doesn't matter. Even being hypocritical doesn't matter. Only group cohesion.
The tribe is absolute.
You've made one very flawed assumption: I'm not a leftist. I don't claim all paths are equally true, or that all feelings are valid, or that all people deserve protection. To me, you are not an exception to any rules, nor do you represent an inconsistency in my worldview. You're merely the worst of the worst, and perhaps the only threat that warrants this particular kind of harshness. Casting you out is a civic duty.
Here's a hint: it's not your looks. You just can't hide it. If you could stand to do what that takes, you wouldn't need to. Which isn't to say that you'll never be non-creepy; it just means that you'll first have to recognize your own need to change and grow as a person.
When you seek to destroy people, you lose any claim to protection: you become the thing people need protectiob from. Nothing but a common bully, who deserves what all bullies deserve.
I understand. It's hard when nobody wants you around. Have you tried not being creepy? That usually works.
This is why you can't get a date.
In point of fact, I don't. Doesn't matter. No one there supports it either.
The Internet was built by people who didn't understand the difference between ostracism and bullying. Neither did anybody else at the time, and if anything, people struggle even harder to tell them apart nowadays. This lack of understanding causes terrible damage in all sorts of ways, most of which are beyond the scope of this thread, buy I'll point to Geek Social Fallacy #1 ("Ostracizers are evil") as one of the major factors behind what happened next.
Essentially, the Internet has no effective way to ostracize people because it was created by people who mistook it for bullying. But as a result, it is being taken over by people who really, really need to be ostracized, and who often are in offline contexts. They come online because it's easier to escape off to The Great Enabler rather than confront the reasons nobody wants them around, but the latter is what they really need to be doing. And we have no way to force them into it now.
Even if I wanted to support such a thing, I would need to see some evidence that anyone is interested in it. Near as I can tell, no one is. Certainly there are no movements of any significance; out of the seven billion people on this planet I suspect there are probably a few isolated individuals, but nothing is gaining any traction. All you've got is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that, although it's older than Nazism as we know it, inspired them so heavily that it's basically theirs now.
And the new definition is anyone that disagrees with you right?
Not at all. Pretty much the only thing you have to do to not be a Nazi is oppose the genocide or subjugation of other peoples, and likewise oppose separatism along the same lines (which in practice inevitably amounts to the same thing). As long as you fit that criteria, you're basically in the clear as far as being a Nazi goes.
After all, you can't be a true SJW without a crusade to fight.
I see very little justice at all in the SJWs' definition of "social justice". They're still better people to be around than creeps like you, though.
I'm thinking of bunch of boots on a face, where the boots belong to people of all ages, races, sexes, and creeds, and the face belongs to a Nazi.
You are a liberal aren't you? I ask because the level of idiocy you just displayed.... I give up..
As I've said before, I don't think anyone to the left of Orrin Hatch could ever mistake me for a liberal.
The total body count for Communism is indeed quite high, but it fails to take into account the fact that they've had a lot longer to do it, and much greater resources at their disposal. The only reason the Nazis' count isn't higher is that they ran out of time: given a larger empire and several decades, there can be little doubt that they'd have done far worse.
Dammit; I'm trying to remember the name of the fallacy where disagreeing with A supposedly means that B is good. You and your so-called friends have been spewing it all over the place. I am not attempting to claim that Communism is remotely acceptable. I'm merely pointing outthat there are things even worse than Communism, and, well, you're it.
Forum 2000 was doing this 20 years ago.
What says it's an obcession?
You do. You couldn't even get through a list of six points without mentioning it outright three times, and you masked it badly in several others.
I just state it's a thing.
And that is why you fail. It is not a thing, and it only takes a few minutes looking over the data to see that.
And just because you think people and their culture and ways and soverign rule and what not is worth preserving doesn't mean you have to kill anyone whatsoever.
Sure it does, the next time "your people" arbitrarily decide need some "living space". This has already happened whenever you or your ideological predecessors have ever taken power. And you've thrown your lot in with people who will do this again if given the chance. That makes you one of them.
Besides, why would anyone expect any people's "culture" and "ways", even their own, to last unchanging for all time? We all have so much to learn from each other, and we are at our best when we do so. As this happens, it isn't just natural for cultures to shift, and grow together, and eventually merge; it's frankly surprising thag anyone would expect otherwise. The culture you demand be locked into stasis is itself a result, in no small part, of many iterations of this exact process. It's how we work, it's what we do.
And this is not to say that immigration should be uncontrolled, nor that the controls should be recklessly loose. Every nation has, and legitimately needs, the right to say who can and cannot come in. But you have already stated that "biological similarity" factors into your goals for this control, and that pretty much invalidates your whole viewpoint. I am no liberal, to say that all viewpoints are equally valid: false paths exist, and yours is the most false.