watting was recognized as a prank before this incident.
Indeed it was. This was not only a wrong de ision, it was obviously wrong even the time. It is time to recognize it as the attempted murder it really is.
And intent matters.
Malice aforethought matters, and this does not always mean intent. Depraved indifference to the risk to another person's life and limb has been recognized as malice aforethought for centuries.
This is why the decision to recognize SWATting as a mere "prank" was wrong, and must be changed. Only someone with a horribly depraved indifference to the victim's life and limb would ever go through with such a reckless thing. They are murderers, and should be treated as such.
He tricked the police into acting as his personal assassins, showing depraved indifference in doing so. He should he prosecuted as such, as should all SWATters: murder when someone dies, attempted murder in other cases.
And no, I don't care if you find it funny to watch SchrÃdinger's Snuff Films on Twitch.
When a hitman kills, we hold the person who hired him to be equally culpable in the killing: in essence, a second perpetrator. Should it he any different for someone who essentially tricked the police into acting as his hitman?
How is calling people who are there to protect other people a crime?
It isn't, unless you know there's nothing they need to protect anyone from. At the very least that's filing a false police report (which is in fact a crime), and besides that, it's abuse of the state apparatus to commit assault (and sometimes worse) for you. In cases like this, the caller should be held criminally liable for any harm or death that occurs, and the abuse of police resources should be counted as an aggravating factor.
Not only have there been numerous attempts, they aren't even shy about them. You do not have to wait for your assailant's fist to actually land before you defend yourself.
The only people being violent are liberals.
That's wobnderful news. You should go tell that to Heather Heyer's family; I'm sure they'll be quite relieved.
You know, it's funny. No one to the left of Orrin Hatch would mistake me for a leftist. This has gotten me into no end of political tangles and dust-ups in the places I go. And yet, I've never been called a Nazi. Not even in jest, except in direct response to me pointing out that nobody ever calls me a Nazi, and I think we can all agree that doesn't count.
How can this be, I wonder? If you and I -rightists both- are so similar, how is it possible that you get called a Nazi all the time, yet I never do, even as a joke? I suspect it comes down to one critical difference between us: you are a Nazi, and I am not. Godwin's Law aside, most people really are savvy enough to tell the difference.
So all of a sudden it's "acceptable" to be violent towards someone because they have different views than you, but only if it's a certain subset of different views.
Views have nothing to do with it. What legitimizes violence against then is their continued active attempts to kill and/or subjugate everyone who isn't like them, starting with those who don't fit their list of approved ethnicities and religions, but quickly branching out into others. They have had decades to prove that they will do this at every opportunity, so every attempt by them to gain power should be taken as an active and deliberate attempt to commit the violence they espouse.
Yes, autocratic white supremecists are bad. No, that is not a free pass for committing assault. Grow up.
So has he stalked her from company to company, or is he just stalking her at the one? Either way, it sounds like he's not just a felon, he'a also a creep.
There is little hope of stopping the meme, unfortunately. Streisand effect and all that. But bankrupting white supremacist leaders and profiteers via legal fees and damages would still do a lot of good in its own right, so I support this anyway.
I hope the proceeds get donated to Antifa's legal defense fund. The thought of using appropriated Nazi funds to help Nazi-punchers get off in court makes me all tingly inside.
Nothing "current" about it. Fantasy has been recognized as part of the genre for 50-plus years: almost certainly longer than he's been alive, and maybe even longer than his parents have been alive. It's a false nostalgia for a time that jever truly existed: a fantasy, if you will.
Not sure why companies care about the content of their users outside of what is legally permitted. Either you're there to make money, or you're there to be moral police and make money.
And by and large, companies don't care, not even AirBNB, Discord, and Google. Plenty of bad stuff still goes down under the auspices of these businesses, and this will likely continue for a very, very long time.
But there are degrees. Sometimes people just go so far over the line that even entities not normally concerned with morality feel compelled to stand up and say "Dude, that's just wrong". And that's all that is happening here. You're that bad, and your opponents simply are not. You don't operate according to some mystical cosmic balance; you're just evil. And you're getting a very, very small taste of what you deserve.
Spencer has addressed the topic at length for anyone who actually cares, which clearly most don't since they just want to spew shit against any movement that unites the interests of native European peoples.
His arguments are bullshit, a transparent attempt at thinly disguising Nazi ideology among people who have not already bought into it, as you have.
Basically anyone who doesn't support open borders, unlimited immigration, and ethnic replacement = Nazi.
If you buy into the ridiculous conspiracy theory that anyone is "replacing" your ethnicity, then yes, you're on the path to Nazi ideology. All else is window dressing and implementation detail, because they've already caught you in the Big Lie. If you aren't a monster yet, you're a dupe. Turn back.
I know that aspect of history perfectly well. Once, they were indeed at war, and the Soviet Union did indeed pay more dearly than anyone else. There was a lot of mutual hatred between these groups for a very long time.
But the one constant of history is that times change. Alliances shift. These once-bitter foes have close mutual interests nowadays, and there can be no doubt that over those interests, they could strike a deal.
It would have been unthinkable even a decade ago, but the times have changed. The Nazis chant "Russia is our friend" nowadays. Can overtures the other way be far behind?
Except that the content isn't any more difficult to access. An IP address is no more difficult to type into a browser's address bar than a DNS name, nor is a link to an IP address any harder to click on. And this is assuming that this site won't be able to find a DNS address anywhere at all, which is also quite a stretch. If nothing else, I'm sure the.ru registrar would be happy to hook them up.
There are also many sites thaf thrive without any DNS names at all, in the deep web, for example. There simply is no case for censorship here. This is just a business exercising its right to free association by choosing not to associate with monsters.
Throughout history, there are lessons we did not learn as a species until towns, nations, peoples, and even whole species had died due to our errors. Learn we did, but the cost was unspeakably high. We are not fast learners.
We still don't have it right. There are still lessons to learn, and undoubtedly some of those will not be learned until worlds have died. But someone still has to be around to learn those lessons afterwards, and for that to happen, we must go to other worlds.
Otherwise, it is pointless. No one will be saved if we don't go: a world will still die. But it will die for nothing, benefiting nobody whatsoever with the same detriments to those involved when it perishes. At least by going it can mean something.
Although there is much to be said about the terminally-irresilient and their own issues with paranoia and jumping to conclusions about those they disagree with, there are also some marked differences that make them harder to pin down. Among other things, as you yourself have noticed, the conclusions they jump to actually vary: you had to assemble quite a list of varying list of insults to capture the breadth of vitriol the tumblrites can fling at a person, while the creeplords don't really seem to have anything other than "cuck".
I never did understand how the bitter unfuckables arrived at "cuck" as their concept of the ultimate sick burn. I mean, I get the idea of projection and all, but why expose one's own ultimate insecurity this way? How is that tactically sound?
Review sites may well destroy the tired old formulas, but this need not destroy the business. At worst it injects some risk back into the business again, as studios are forced to find new formulas to replace those now being rejected by moviegoers as played out, but is that such a bad thing? The last period of experimentation produced the original blockbusters that spawned these remakes and sequels, after all, and it was considered a golden age.
It is easy to argue that a perfect driverless car should act according to strict utilitarian principles, maximizing the number of lives saved. But a perfect driverless car, bug-free and unassailable, is still decades away, if it is even achievable. Imperfect driverless cars are close, but the rules are different. They must be. Until it can be proven that a driverless car is bug-free and utterly immune to outside attack, there must be no code path that allows it to deprioritize the lives of its own occupants. The three reasons for this are simple: bugs, attacks, and buggy attacks.
The issues with bugs and attacks are clear: bugs can cause random deaths, and attacks designed to kill the passenger create a new tool for those who would murder. But buggy attacks -that is to say, attacks that are not designed to harm anyone, but do so anyway because faulty attack code- may be the biggest threat of all. More than one piece of malware, particularly among the early viruses and worms has proved far more destructive than its creators ever intended, all due to bugs, not in the code of the system being attacked, but in the attack code itself. Even if the code in a driverless car's system can be guaranteed bug-free, we cannot assume this of attack code, which is what makes immunity to attack so important.
We are not at a state where we can guarantee such security. Until we are, we must not allow driverless cars to deprioritize their own occupants' safety, even in cases where doing so holds great philosophical appeal. Doing so would almost certainly take far more lives than it would save.
Slashdot Mirror
watting was recognized as a prank before this incident.
Indeed it was. This was not only a wrong de ision, it was obviously wrong even the time. It is time to recognize it as the attempted murder it really is.
And intent matters.
Malice aforethought matters, and this does not always mean intent. Depraved indifference to the risk to another person's life and limb has been recognized as malice aforethought for centuries.
This is why the decision to recognize SWATting as a mere "prank" was wrong, and must be changed. Only someone with a horribly depraved indifference to the victim's life and limb would ever go through with such a reckless thing. They are murderers, and should be treated as such.
He tricked the police into acting as his personal assassins, showing depraved indifference in doing so. He should he prosecuted as such, as should all SWATters: murder when someone dies, attempted murder in other cases.
And no, I don't care if you find it funny to watch SchrÃdinger's Snuff Films on Twitch.
When a hitman kills, we hold the person who hired him to be equally culpable in the killing: in essence, a second perpetrator. Should it he any different for someone who essentially tricked the police into acting as his hitman?
How is calling people who are there to protect other people a crime?
It isn't, unless you know there's nothing they need to protect anyone from. At the very least that's filing a false police report (which is in fact a crime), and besides that, it's abuse of the state apparatus to commit assault (and sometimes worse) for you. In cases like this, the caller should be held criminally liable for any harm or death that occurs, and the abuse of police resources should be counted as an aggravating factor.
There are no such attempts.
Not only have there been numerous attempts, they aren't even shy about them. You do not have to wait for your assailant's fist to actually land before you defend yourself.
The only people being violent are liberals.
That's wobnderful news. You should go tell that to Heather Heyer's family; I'm sure they'll be quite relieved.
You know, it's funny. No one to the left of Orrin Hatch would mistake me for a leftist. This has gotten me into no end of political tangles and dust-ups in the places I go. And yet, I've never been called a Nazi. Not even in jest, except in direct response to me pointing out that nobody ever calls me a Nazi, and I think we can all agree that doesn't count.
How can this be, I wonder? If you and I -rightists both- are so similar, how is it possible that you get called a Nazi all the time, yet I never do, even as a joke? I suspect it comes down to one critical difference between us: you are a Nazi, and I am not. Godwin's Law aside, most people really are savvy enough to tell the difference.
So all of a sudden it's "acceptable" to be violent towards someone because they have different views than you, but only if it's a certain subset of different views.
Views have nothing to do with it. What legitimizes violence against then is their continued active attempts to kill and/or subjugate everyone who isn't like them, starting with those who don't fit their list of approved ethnicities and religions, but quickly branching out into others. They have had decades to prove that they will do this at every opportunity, so every attempt by them to gain power should be taken as an active and deliberate attempt to commit the violence they espouse.
Yes, autocratic white supremecists are bad. No, that is not a free pass for committing assault. Grow up.
Nazi-punching is legitimate self-defense.
So has he stalked her from company to company, or is he just stalking her at the one? Either way, it sounds like he's not just a felon, he'a also a creep.
Ce n'est pas un spécial de NoÃl?
Balloons are round. Clearly the makers must be in league with THEM.
Ooh, hit a nerve, did I? Couldn't even get all the words out? Self-defense against genocidal maniacs get you scared for some reason?
Mommy! Mommy! The people I'm bullying are hitting back and it's not FAIIIIIIIIIIR! MAKE THEM STOOOOOOOOOP!!!!!!!1!
You're not getting anything you haven't brought on yourselves.
There is little hope of stopping the meme, unfortunately. Streisand effect and all that. But bankrupting white supremacist leaders and profiteers via legal fees and damages would still do a lot of good in its own right, so I support this anyway.
I hope the proceeds get donated to Antifa's legal defense fund. The thought of using appropriated Nazi funds to help Nazi-punchers get off in court makes me all tingly inside.
Nothing "current" about it. Fantasy has been recognized as part of the genre for 50-plus years: almost certainly longer than he's been alive, and maybe even longer than his parents have been alive. It's a false nostalgia for a time that jever truly existed: a fantasy, if you will.
Not sure why companies care about the content of their users outside of what is legally permitted. Either you're there to make money, or you're there to be moral police and make money.
And by and large, companies don't care, not even AirBNB, Discord, and Google. Plenty of bad stuff still goes down under the auspices of these businesses, and this will likely continue for a very, very long time.
But there are degrees. Sometimes people just go so far over the line that even entities not normally concerned with morality feel compelled to stand up and say "Dude, that's just wrong". And that's all that is happening here. You're that bad, and your opponents simply are not. You don't operate according to some mystical cosmic balance; you're just evil. And you're getting a very, very small taste of what you deserve.
"Nazi ideology"? Use of that term is a joke.
If only.
The AltRight is not about Nazi ideology.
Yes, it is.
Spencer has addressed the topic at length for anyone who actually cares, which clearly most don't since they just want to spew shit against any movement that unites the interests of native European peoples.
His arguments are bullshit, a transparent attempt at thinly disguising Nazi ideology among people who have not already bought into it, as you have.
Basically anyone who doesn't support open borders, unlimited immigration, and ethnic replacement = Nazi.
If you buy into the ridiculous conspiracy theory that anyone is "replacing" your ethnicity, then yes, you're on the path to Nazi ideology. All else is window dressing and implementation detail, because they've already caught you in the Big Lie. If you aren't a monster yet, you're a dupe. Turn back.
I know that aspect of history perfectly well. Once, they were indeed at war, and the Soviet Union did indeed pay more dearly than anyone else. There was a lot of mutual hatred between these groups for a very long time.
But the one constant of history is that times change. Alliances shift. These once-bitter foes have close mutual interests nowadays, and there can be no doubt that over those interests, they could strike a deal.
It would have been unthinkable even a decade ago, but the times have changed. The Nazis chant "Russia is our friend" nowadays. Can overtures the other way be far behind?
Except that the content isn't any more difficult to access. An IP address is no more difficult to type into a browser's address bar than a DNS name, nor is a link to an IP address any harder to click on. And this is assuming that this site won't be able to find a DNS address anywhere at all, which is also quite a stretch. If nothing else, I'm sure the .ru registrar would be happy to hook them up.
There are also many sites thaf thrive without any DNS names at all, in the deep web, for example. There simply is no case for censorship here. This is just a business exercising its right to free association by choosing not to associate with monsters.
The Hugos have recognized fantasy for decades. This is not a recent phenomenon; your tastes are just narrow.
Rest in peace to the deceased, and I am sorry to their families.
But don't you EVER scare me like that again.
Throughout history, there are lessons we did not learn as a species until towns, nations, peoples, and even whole species had died due to our errors. Learn we did, but the cost was unspeakably high. We are not fast learners.
We still don't have it right. There are still lessons to learn, and undoubtedly some of those will not be learned until worlds have died. But someone still has to be around to learn those lessons afterwards, and for that to happen, we must go to other worlds.
Otherwise, it is pointless. No one will be saved if we don't go: a world will still die. But it will die for nothing, benefiting nobody whatsoever with the same detriments to those involved when it perishes. At least by going it can mean something.
Although there is much to be said about the terminally-irresilient and their own issues with paranoia and jumping to conclusions about those they disagree with, there are also some marked differences that make them harder to pin down. Among other things, as you yourself have noticed, the conclusions they jump to actually vary: you had to assemble quite a list of varying list of insults to capture the breadth of vitriol the tumblrites can fling at a person, while the creeplords don't really seem to have anything other than "cuck".
I never did understand how the bitter unfuckables arrived at "cuck" as their concept of the ultimate sick burn. I mean, I get the idea of projection and all, but why expose one's own ultimate insecurity this way? How is that tactically sound?
Review sites may well destroy the tired old formulas, but this need not destroy the business. At worst it injects some risk back into the business again, as studios are forced to find new formulas to replace those now being rejected by moviegoers as played out, but is that such a bad thing? The last period of experimentation produced the original blockbusters that spawned these remakes and sequels, after all, and it was considered a golden age.
It is easy to argue that a perfect driverless car should act according to strict utilitarian principles, maximizing the number of lives saved. But a perfect driverless car, bug-free and unassailable, is still decades away, if it is even achievable. Imperfect driverless cars are close, but the rules are different. They must be. Until it can be proven that a driverless car is bug-free and utterly immune to outside attack, there must be no code path that allows it to deprioritize the lives of its own occupants. The three reasons for this are simple: bugs, attacks, and buggy attacks.
The issues with bugs and attacks are clear: bugs can cause random deaths, and attacks designed to kill the passenger create a new tool for those who would murder. But buggy attacks -that is to say, attacks that are not designed to harm anyone, but do so anyway because faulty attack code- may be the biggest threat of all. More than one piece of malware, particularly among the early viruses and worms has proved far more destructive than its creators ever intended, all due to bugs, not in the code of the system being attacked, but in the attack code itself. Even if the code in a driverless car's system can be guaranteed bug-free, we cannot assume this of attack code, which is what makes immunity to attack so important.
We are not at a state where we can guarantee such security. Until we are, we must not allow driverless cars to deprioritize their own occupants' safety, even in cases where doing so holds great philosophical appeal. Doing so would almost certainly take far more lives than it would save.