You did get the guarantee: the law is that your judgment is the final word.
There is nothing to doubt your judgment (you're not a meth head or an alcoholic).
And the age (9 or 10) is perfectly reasonable for a child to have the wherewithal to take care of themselves for a few hours (if you said your 2 year old can be left home alone, then obviously your judgment sucks).
There are 9 and 10 year olds (heck, there are 14 and 15 year olds) who can't be left alone: immaturity or mental defect like autism, for example.
So assuming you are mentally normal and competent to have reasonable judgment, and assuming your children are mentally normal and average maturity for their age, your judgment is legally final and binding on the topic in those states which do not have an age listed (which is most of them).
it's about being left home alone, but the idea is the same: the age at which a child can be left to fend for themselves for a few hours, legally
the age of 8 for maryland listed here doesn't take into account the concept of a babysitter, which the 10 year old could qualify as
this suggests the parents should be fine, by legal precedent, rather than philosophical inspection, which of course immediately suggests the asshole busybody that called the police needs to get a fucking life, and the cops should have just given the kids a ride or asked how they were and then told to have a nice day and drove off
And now he's gonna piss off the jury,because they're going to smell it for what it is - an attempt to fool the jury.
unfortunately, i think you are overestimating most juries
their affinity/ understanding of soap opera level drama is way more than their understanding of basic tor networking or how bitcoin works
get into the technical facts that prove ulbricht is guilty, and their eyes will glaze over and they will fall asleep
start tossing random unfounded accusation smoke screens, the prosecution shouting "objection," the judge growling "sustained"... and they'll perk right up and start writing notes
tor was built by the us navy for dissidents and spies. this is no deep secret
and the slightest strategic thought makes one understand it should be possible for an entity like the us govt to control or track enough exit nodes to mostly have a handle on most tor traffic
how would anyone with a basic understanding of networking not see?
now people are building their own tor-like services. ok, i see the innate untraceability therein (until govts make a concerted sustained effort to profile, then shape traffic, so it will be safe only for awhile)
but was it just a bunch of ignorant enthusiasm that saw tor as "dark" and somehow protected from govt visibility?
they make it work for the people that fund their campaigns
it's a false narrative: people believe government is an impediment
of course government and bureaucracy can screw things up, but lack of government is far worse, and a corrupt government that serves plutocracy is far, far worse
the idea should be to treat the sick patient that is government by removing the corruption. but too many morons think killing the patient is a viable option. weaken government and that simply means the power vacuum is filled by the very forces that are corrupting government. works for them: less effort to get what they want at your detriment
government is not the problem. corruption is. of course corruption will always be a problem. the idea is to minimize it. but currently in the usa, we have legalized corruption: revolving door employment between regulator and industry. corporations openly buying candidates in election campaign funding. these are our real problems: corruption. not government itself
this is a casual forum, not a job or a research paper
if you don't understand what the topic is, yes, you should do your research. if someone is nice and points the way, thank them. if someone doesn't respond, yo don't have a right to feel angry or slighted: nobody is your father here. no one owes you holding your hand and explaining a topic to you
yes, it would be nice if people who are knowledgeable would offer sources more often. the problem is not that they don't. the problem is thankless lazy and immature types who demand it and get angry if they don't
that is the wrong dynamic: they should be asking nicely and thanking. no one owes you anything here, you have no right to get angry or make demands. when facing such a person, no one feels the desire or need to respond to that dynamic, it's without reward
there's also the dynamic of people who are challenged on ideological beliefs who go "proof or stfu!" who have no intention of intellectual honesty and will not be fairly swayed by proof. if you are genuinely interested in forming an ideology based on actual proof, you would be motivated yourself to seek out proof on your own. but too often people make their ideological conclusions then ignore all proof to the contrary. they demand someone counter their illogical positions with logic. which is impossible. it's just empty deflection, the demand for proof that will never be fairly considered
and so there is no utility in carefully citing your sources on demand from an angry person on a casual internet forum. if someone asks nicely and thanks the person for sources, some may come out of their shell. but they are in their shell for a reason: the common boorishness, laziness, immaturity, and intellectual dishonesty on internet forums means it is not worth the effort of responding to angry demands for proof
as in real life, "please" and "thank you" get you real results
Yeah, I've done my own armchair psychological profiling.
Problem is they're smart enough to throw in red herrings. So I have details, but I just can't be sure.
They're witty, well spoken.
From the way they get information, I'd suspect someone connected to media, a reporter or editor. They always know topics, stories, details way ahead of almost everyone else. They are also regular, flinging their bile on a weekly basis for years. Like it was their job (or... an easy psychological subset of their job.)
They're frustrated about something in their lives. And abusing their neighbors soothes them. Their target is always the opinions and thoughts of people just blogging and commenting. I would assume they have to feign neutrality about such topics for their work, and this is their way of letting go.
The worst part is we're not dealing with a stupid person, they are articulate. Funny even sometimes. The less witty trolls like this person. But not funny like entertaining but funny by mistake in pursuit of serious mockery and smearing. Definitely someone with a serious social issue related to... burn out on all of life? Manifesting as a misanthropic hate for... everyone.
I guess it's better than arson or serial killing. It's still fucking annoying as hell for someone like me genuinely interested in bettering the place they live and interested in healthy discourse, online and off. A giant wet blanket. The topic comes up at parties and such, who are they?
1. click the link 2. put the url in quotes 3. google returns a search page with the link being the first result 4. click that, and get the page without invoking paywall
NYT allows following results from google without restriction
By your tone you seem to be pushing for something more drastic, so I'm asking what that might be.
i'm speaking as a mod. so i meant: banhammer. that's the extent of my abilities
if you're asking for what i would LIKE to do, it would be to attach a real name to the behavior. real life consequences: this is your neighborhood troll, the person who has been hating, attacking, smearing, and mocking everyone for no good reason other than feeding their bizarre social disorder
they aren't dumb either. they're well spoken. and they are plugged into what happens in the small city. which makes it all the more worse, because the attacks are well-aimed. witty even. but so hateful
for everyone else on the forum: yeah. we're hyperlocal and talking about real people's names. or if they are using a joke name, everyone knows who they are or they have no problem identifying who they are. or there's their picture right next to the joke name. no one is hiding anything, nor has a reason to
and then there's this one outlier. who carefully conceals their identity, uses many sock puppets, and griefs, constantly. like it was their job. enraging and mystifying, that such constant hard effort at such wide reaching interpersonal hate should be so important to someone
and it never ends! what drives someone like that?
you think people are mostly understandable and their motives mostly make sense in this world, transparent, simple. and then you encounter someone with this rare social disorder, with such convoluted hate. this driving pressing need to get personal and negative with people who are obviously their neighbors, from such a cowardly angle of anonymity
if they used a real name or were easily traceable to a real person, that might not necessarily be better but at least all the bad behavior sticks on someone in real life. consequences
with no other agenda except to hate, mock, attack, smear. it's maddening and perplexing. such a concerted effort whose only real effect is to degrade communication and turn people off from sharing and coordinating
this one person has multiple sock puppet accounts. i know because i see them post the same thing within seconds of other posts and use the same verbal cadence, obsessive focus, same language, etc. their real identity is carefully hidden. but they'll make believe they are other people, real and imagined, frequently
they camp new discussion topics with their venom. span multiple sites. go out of their way to make fun of local bloggers... simply for blogging about what interests them
it takes a lot of sustained effort. and this goes on weekly. for years
so one demented person can dominate the local forum for an entire community of thousands. and degrade it. and make people not want to talk about, well, anything. so we all suffer for it
because one douchebag has a pathetic need to turn everything to their pointless interpersonal bullshit?
so i disagree with you. just saying "oh well" shrugging my shoulders and accepting that is simply not good enough
an entire community's social forums should not be held hostage and ruined by one head case with a social disorder
There is one local character with a personality disorder who carefully hides online and constantly, for years, weekly attacks and smears taunts and insults local people just going about their online and offline business.
If it were fair and open criticism, so what.
If it were a national site, so what.
If they were attacking CEOs or politicians or bureaucrats... good!
But for local communities it's a real problem when people with serious asocial problems use all of their efforts, for YEARS, on a weekly basis, to simply do their best to degrade any and all online and even offline interaction and assassinate people's character out of simple avarice. They have a serious problem, and they make us part of it.
Such people always existed. There are people with profound social problems in this world who derive pleasure from hurting others in petty ways. But when you are talking about small communities, and easy carefully protected anonymity, and prolonged sustained effort fueled by a psychological disorder, you have a new phenomenon.
Not even just for the local community. It's not healthy psychologically and socially for the sick person to indulge their bad behavior rather than get help.
This article isn't my location, but here's a good write up from a few years back similar to what I and others in my small city have to deal with:
And in Dee’s Place, people are not happy. A waitress, Pheobe Best, said that the site had provoked fights and caused divorces. The diner’s owner, Jim Deverell, called Topix a “cesspool of character assassination.” And hearing the conversation, Shane James, the cook, wandered out of the kitchen tense with anger.
His wife, Jennifer, had been the target in a post titled “freak,” he said, which described the mother of two as, among other things, “a methed-out, doped-out whore with AIDS.” Not a word was true, Mr. and Ms. James said, but the consequences were real enough.
Friends and relatives stopped speaking to them. Trips to the grocery store brought a crushing barrage of knowing glances. She wept constantly and even considered suicide. Now, the couple has resolved to move.
“I’ll never come back to this town again,” Ms. James said in an interview at the diner. “I just want to get the hell away from here.”
In rural America, where an older, poorer and more remote population has lagged the rest of the country in embracing the Internet, the growing use of social media is raising familiar concerns about bullying and privacy. But in small towns there are complications.
The same Web sites created as places for candid talk about local news and politics are also hubs of unsubstantiated gossip, stirring widespread resentment in communities where ties run deep, memories run long and anonymity is something of a novel concept.
he is correct in noting that the center of mass in muslim ideology shrugs it's shoulders at things like charlie hebdo. you could go to cairo, kartachi, riyadh, etc., and easily find people who blame the cartoonists, if not an outright majority
that matters
yeah, there's liberal muslims who understand free speech, that speech offensive to you doesn't justify murder. but there is simply far too little of them in this world. partly because any liberal muslim who does speak out in muslim lands in favor of progress towards tolerance, simply gets murdered
people in the west have to come to grips with the fact that there are simply a lot of muslims who are comfortable with what happened at charlie hebdo. and that's a real and huge problem
this doesn't mean we treat muslims badly in the west, as some pea brained western assholes want. that's actually what people in al qaeda and ISIS want: if the west responds violently, it further radicalizes more muslims to their fold. al qaeda and ISIS want to antagonize western morons to respond with violence. that helps them recruit
but what it does mean is that certain cotton headed western liberals, and i consider myself a western liberal (but not a cotton headed one) need to shut fuck up and stop saying "it's because they're poor," "it's because they are excluded," "it's because we hurt their feelings so it's our fault"
apologists are disgusting. no one mass murders because they feel slighted by you, and it's YOUR fault they did that?
so what to do we do? we crack down on imams and any loudmouths who preach hate. there is nothing about the concept of free speech that says those who want to violently destroy free speech deserve free speech protections
intolerance of intolerance is not the same as intolerance itself
Michael Walzer asks "Should we tolerate the intolerant?". He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue".[1] Philosopher Karl Popper asserted, in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1, that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance. Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2]
just like banning nazi ideology in germany does not violate free speech principals because nazism symbolizes the end of free speech principals, the west must get comfortable shutting down, shutting up, jailing and deporting imams and assorted douchebags who preach hate and jihad
this does not violate principals of western liberty. you don't get the protections of liberty at the same time you preach for the violent destruction of liberty. it's not logical coherent. so western apologists who think their violence is our fault need to shut the fuck up: you're wrong. this is larger than a simple grievance about not getting a fucking job. this is an organized ideology of hate, as potent and dangerous as nazism
machiavelli... who learned it from the romans... but in truth, tribes have been vying against each in turf wars since before we were even completely human, and a slow infiltration was always a tactic, if not even purposeful. europe will be muslim by the end of the century for example
On the subject of colonization, Machiavelli says essentially what one would expect-that it is a cheap and effective way for a foreign power to exert its influence over a weaker neighbor without much risk of retaliation. To say at the same time that he originated the idea of using colonies to invade other nations would be to give him credit for a concept that had already existed in Western civilization since the time of the Roman expansion into Europe. What he says about the utility of colonies for the purpose of seizing control over foreign principalities, apart from a few marginal differences, can be found as early as 250 A. D. in the work of the early Christian Father Tertullian who records essentially the same ideology. The difference might be that Tertullian used a moral argument about reducing redundant populations caused by lechery who could be sent to the colonies to ease the stresses of overpopulation in the homeland; while, Machiavelli advocated using them to spearhead an invasion force directed against the overthrow of the ruler of an existing principality or as a force to maintain power once the ruler had been overthrown. He says that
is being a good hardworking but poor student doing nothing? then a free higher education is not a handout either
you say a free college education is rightful payment for serving in wwii, and i agree. but it was just another new crazy liberal progressive "socialist" "handout" idea from roosevelt's time, like social security
the gi bill can be defined as deserved or undeserved, depending upon how heartless or thoughtful you are
As the G.I. Bill made its way through the House and Senate committees, the unemployment assistance, education, and training provisions came under fire. Republicans worried the bill would lead to further expansion of the federal government. Much of the rhetoric echoed the debates over how to respond to the Great Depression, as members questioned whether these programs would encourage or discourage veterans from finding jobs. Colmery, who was no fan of the New Deal, bristled at the suggestion that veterans would turn into shiftless workers upon their return. The bill placed time limits on the benefits to prevent it from becoming an open-ended program like Social Security, the cornerstone of the New Deal.
On March 24, the Senate passed the G.I. Bill unanimously, but the House continued to debate the unemployment and education provisions for another two months. Rankin, chair of the House veterans committee, had evolved into one of its sharpest critics. An unrepentant segregationist, he worried that African-American veterans would use the benefits to avoid work and live off the government. Rankin also didn’t see the need to give African Americans the same benefits as whites.
By late April, Atherton publicly called out Rankin for delaying the bill. “If Mr. Rankin means that he wants to deny unemployment insurance to the men now carrying a bayonet for Uncle Sam, the veterans of the American Legion intend to fight him right down the line and to take the issue to every voter in the country.” When Rankin continued with his antics, the other members of the committee banded together to defy their chairman and move the bill forward. After a stormy debate, the House passed its version of the G.I. Bill on May 18. Unemployment insurance had survived, but veterans would only be eligible for twenty-six weeks, as opposed to fifty-two weeks under the Senate version.
think about how you see the gi bill as not an entitlement for freeloaders, but a deserved payment for service, which i agree with. but now think about how some conservative assholes and trolls today think things like funding basic education and basic healthcare are entitlements for undeserved freeloaders. now think about how such ignorant opposition to progress today will be viewed in the future, like you and i read past opposition the gi bill today
everyone deserves a good education. or we do not really live in a meritocracy
Slashdot Mirror
You did get the guarantee: the law is that your judgment is the final word.
There is nothing to doubt your judgment (you're not a meth head or an alcoholic).
And the age (9 or 10) is perfectly reasonable for a child to have the wherewithal to take care of themselves for a few hours (if you said your 2 year old can be left home alone, then obviously your judgment sucks).
There are 9 and 10 year olds (heck, there are 14 and 15 year olds) who can't be left alone: immaturity or mental defect like autism, for example.
So assuming you are mentally normal and competent to have reasonable judgment, and assuming your children are mentally normal and average maturity for their age, your judgment is legally final and binding on the topic in those states which do not have an age listed (which is most of them).
this chart might have some value:
http://www.latchkey-kids.com/l...
it's about being left home alone, but the idea is the same: the age at which a child can be left to fend for themselves for a few hours, legally
the age of 8 for maryland listed here doesn't take into account the concept of a babysitter, which the 10 year old could qualify as
this suggests the parents should be fine, by legal precedent, rather than philosophical inspection, which of course immediately suggests the asshole busybody that called the police needs to get a fucking life, and the cops should have just given the kids a ride or asked how they were and then told to have a nice day and drove off
And now he's gonna piss off the jury,because they're going to smell it for what it is - an attempt to fool the jury.
unfortunately, i think you are overestimating most juries
their affinity/ understanding of soap opera level drama is way more than their understanding of basic tor networking or how bitcoin works
get into the technical facts that prove ulbricht is guilty, and their eyes will glaze over and they will fall asleep
start tossing random unfounded accusation smoke screens, the prosecution shouting "objection," the judge growling "sustained"... and they'll perk right up and start writing notes
why did people ever trust tor?
tor was built by the us navy for dissidents and spies. this is no deep secret
and the slightest strategic thought makes one understand it should be possible for an entity like the us govt to control or track enough exit nodes to mostly have a handle on most tor traffic
how would anyone with a basic understanding of networking not see?
now people are building their own tor-like services. ok, i see the innate untraceability therein (until govts make a concerted sustained effort to profile, then shape traffic, so it will be safe only for awhile)
but was it just a bunch of ignorant enthusiasm that saw tor as "dark" and somehow protected from govt visibility?
but your response was exactly the false narrative i was referring to. you live in a propaganda bubble. pay attention to facts
http://www.opensecrets.org/new...
it is conservatives who are the behind the expansion of money into politics
your narrative isn't false, it's laughable propaganda quality false
they make it work for the people that fund their campaigns
it's a false narrative: people believe government is an impediment
of course government and bureaucracy can screw things up, but lack of government is far worse, and a corrupt government that serves plutocracy is far, far worse
the idea should be to treat the sick patient that is government by removing the corruption. but too many morons think killing the patient is a viable option. weaken government and that simply means the power vacuum is filled by the very forces that are corrupting government. works for them: less effort to get what they want at your detriment
government is not the problem. corruption is. of course corruption will always be a problem. the idea is to minimize it. but currently in the usa, we have legalized corruption: revolving door employment between regulator and industry. corporations openly buying candidates in election campaign funding. these are our real problems: corruption. not government itself
this is a casual forum, not a job or a research paper
if you don't understand what the topic is, yes, you should do your research. if someone is nice and points the way, thank them. if someone doesn't respond, yo don't have a right to feel angry or slighted: nobody is your father here. no one owes you holding your hand and explaining a topic to you
yes, it would be nice if people who are knowledgeable would offer sources more often. the problem is not that they don't. the problem is thankless lazy and immature types who demand it and get angry if they don't
that is the wrong dynamic: they should be asking nicely and thanking. no one owes you anything here, you have no right to get angry or make demands. when facing such a person, no one feels the desire or need to respond to that dynamic, it's without reward
there's also the dynamic of people who are challenged on ideological beliefs who go "proof or stfu!" who have no intention of intellectual honesty and will not be fairly swayed by proof. if you are genuinely interested in forming an ideology based on actual proof, you would be motivated yourself to seek out proof on your own. but too often people make their ideological conclusions then ignore all proof to the contrary. they demand someone counter their illogical positions with logic. which is impossible. it's just empty deflection, the demand for proof that will never be fairly considered
and so there is no utility in carefully citing your sources on demand from an angry person on a casual internet forum. if someone asks nicely and thanks the person for sources, some may come out of their shell. but they are in their shell for a reason: the common boorishness, laziness, immaturity, and intellectual dishonesty on internet forums means it is not worth the effort of responding to angry demands for proof
as in real life, "please" and "thank you" get you real results
the brits built the first dreadnought, yes. everyone was so impressed everyone built one
the noughties were dominated by dreadnoughts on the high seas
call them the dreadnoughties?
Yeah, I've done my own armchair psychological profiling.
Problem is they're smart enough to throw in red herrings. So I have details, but I just can't be sure.
They're witty, well spoken.
From the way they get information, I'd suspect someone connected to media, a reporter or editor. They always know topics, stories, details way ahead of almost everyone else. They are also regular, flinging their bile on a weekly basis for years. Like it was their job (or... an easy psychological subset of their job.)
They're frustrated about something in their lives. And abusing their neighbors soothes them. Their target is always the opinions and thoughts of people just blogging and commenting. I would assume they have to feign neutrality about such topics for their work, and this is their way of letting go.
The worst part is we're not dealing with a stupid person, they are articulate. Funny even sometimes. The less witty trolls like this person. But not funny like entertaining but funny by mistake in pursuit of serious mockery and smearing. Definitely someone with a serious social issue related to... burn out on all of life? Manifesting as a misanthropic hate for... everyone.
I guess it's better than arson or serial killing. It's still fucking annoying as hell for someone like me genuinely interested in bettering the place they live and interested in healthy discourse, online and off. A giant wet blanket. The topic comes up at parties and such, who are they?
1. click the link
2. put the url in quotes
3. google returns a search page with the link being the first result
4. click that, and get the page without invoking paywall
NYT allows following results from google without restriction
good points, well said
By your tone you seem to be pushing for something more drastic, so I'm asking what that might be.
i'm speaking as a mod. so i meant: banhammer. that's the extent of my abilities
if you're asking for what i would LIKE to do, it would be to attach a real name to the behavior. real life consequences: this is your neighborhood troll, the person who has been hating, attacking, smearing, and mocking everyone for no good reason other than feeding their bizarre social disorder
they aren't dumb either. they're well spoken. and they are plugged into what happens in the small city. which makes it all the more worse, because the attacks are well-aimed. witty even. but so hateful
for everyone else on the forum: yeah. we're hyperlocal and talking about real people's names. or if they are using a joke name, everyone knows who they are or they have no problem identifying who they are. or there's their picture right next to the joke name. no one is hiding anything, nor has a reason to
and then there's this one outlier. who carefully conceals their identity, uses many sock puppets, and griefs, constantly. like it was their job. enraging and mystifying, that such constant hard effort at such wide reaching interpersonal hate should be so important to someone
and it never ends! what drives someone like that?
you think people are mostly understandable and their motives mostly make sense in this world, transparent, simple. and then you encounter someone with this rare social disorder, with such convoluted hate. this driving pressing need to get personal and negative with people who are obviously their neighbors, from such a cowardly angle of anonymity
if they used a real name or were easily traceable to a real person, that might not necessarily be better but at least all the bad behavior sticks on someone in real life. consequences
with no other agenda except to hate, mock, attack, smear. it's maddening and perplexing. such a concerted effort whose only real effect is to degrade communication and turn people off from sharing and coordinating
republican obstructionism is fucking stupid and shows they are devoid of any leadership or valid ideas
but... that's politics
we're talking about attacking local common folk, neighbors, no real power. anonymously. constantly. some serious social disorder
if it's temporary no big deal (they come, they vent, they go away: they got over it)
if it's public real identity no big deal (the crank who shows up at city council meetings every week)
if it's constant and anonymous and harmless no big deal (they constantly vent about animal activity in their neighborhood, not people)
if it's on a national board where no one really knows anyone no big deal (4chan)
but if it's 1. constant, 2. anonymous, 3. hateful and interpersonal, and 4. local...
that has to be opposed and dealt with
that's not good enough
this one person has multiple sock puppet accounts. i know because i see them post the same thing within seconds of other posts and use the same verbal cadence, obsessive focus, same language, etc. their real identity is carefully hidden. but they'll make believe they are other people, real and imagined, frequently
they camp new discussion topics with their venom. span multiple sites. go out of their way to make fun of local bloggers... simply for blogging about what interests them
it takes a lot of sustained effort. and this goes on weekly. for years
so one demented person can dominate the local forum for an entire community of thousands. and degrade it. and make people not want to talk about, well, anything. so we all suffer for it
because one douchebag has a pathetic need to turn everything to their pointless interpersonal bullshit?
so i disagree with you. just saying "oh well" shrugging my shoulders and accepting that is simply not good enough
an entire community's social forums should not be held hostage and ruined by one head case with a social disorder
well said
there's definitely an academic study in there somewhere
And this is a real and serious problem.
There is one local character with a personality disorder who carefully hides online and constantly, for years, weekly attacks and smears taunts and insults local people just going about their online and offline business.
If it were fair and open criticism, so what.
If it were a national site, so what.
If they were attacking CEOs or politicians or bureaucrats... good!
But for local communities it's a real problem when people with serious asocial problems use all of their efforts, for YEARS, on a weekly basis, to simply do their best to degrade any and all online and even offline interaction and assassinate people's character out of simple avarice. They have a serious problem, and they make us part of it.
Such people always existed. There are people with profound social problems in this world who derive pleasure from hurting others in petty ways. But when you are talking about small communities, and easy carefully protected anonymity, and prolonged sustained effort fueled by a psychological disorder, you have a new phenomenon.
Not even just for the local community. It's not healthy psychologically and socially for the sick person to indulge their bad behavior rather than get help.
This article isn't my location, but here's a good write up from a few years back similar to what I and others in my small city have to deal with:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09...
he is correct in noting that the center of mass in muslim ideology shrugs it's shoulders at things like charlie hebdo. you could go to cairo, kartachi, riyadh, etc., and easily find people who blame the cartoonists, if not an outright majority
that matters
yeah, there's liberal muslims who understand free speech, that speech offensive to you doesn't justify murder. but there is simply far too little of them in this world. partly because any liberal muslim who does speak out in muslim lands in favor of progress towards tolerance, simply gets murdered
people in the west have to come to grips with the fact that there are simply a lot of muslims who are comfortable with what happened at charlie hebdo. and that's a real and huge problem
this doesn't mean we treat muslims badly in the west, as some pea brained western assholes want. that's actually what people in al qaeda and ISIS want: if the west responds violently, it further radicalizes more muslims to their fold. al qaeda and ISIS want to antagonize western morons to respond with violence. that helps them recruit
but what it does mean is that certain cotton headed western liberals, and i consider myself a western liberal (but not a cotton headed one) need to shut fuck up and stop saying "it's because they're poor," "it's because they are excluded," "it's because we hurt their feelings so it's our fault"
apologists are disgusting. no one mass murders because they feel slighted by you, and it's YOUR fault they did that?
so what to do we do? we crack down on imams and any loudmouths who preach hate. there is nothing about the concept of free speech that says those who want to violently destroy free speech deserve free speech protections
intolerance of intolerance is not the same as intolerance itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
just like banning nazi ideology in germany does not violate free speech principals because nazism symbolizes the end of free speech principals, the west must get comfortable shutting down, shutting up, jailing and deporting imams and assorted douchebags who preach hate and jihad
this does not violate principals of western liberty. you don't get the protections of liberty at the same time you preach for the violent destruction of liberty. it's not logical coherent. so western apologists who think their violence is our fault need to shut the fuck up: you're wrong. this is larger than a simple grievance about not getting a fucking job. this is an organized ideology of hate, as potent and dangerous as nazism
it was all american colonists
texas wasn't going to remain independent, that was a temporary placeholder
and i'm not saying the rest of the usa was going to insist texas join, i am saying this according to the intents and purposes of americans in texas
This is basically a handout to the bottom 1%.
I stopped reading there. You have no clue what you are talking about.
llive by neoimperial colonization, die by neoimperialism colonization
georgia and ukraine should be smiling at the karmic justice
machiavelli... who learned it from the romans... but in truth, tribes have been vying against each in turf wars since before we were even completely human, and a slow infiltration was always a tactic, if not even purposeful. europe will be muslim by the end of the century for example
http://www.mayanastro.freeserv...
is being a good hardworking but poor student doing nothing? then a free higher education is not a handout either
you say a free college education is rightful payment for serving in wwii, and i agree. but it was just another new crazy liberal progressive "socialist" "handout" idea from roosevelt's time, like social security
the gi bill can be defined as deserved or undeserved, depending upon how heartless or thoughtful you are
http://www.neh.gov/humanities/...
think about how you see the gi bill as not an entitlement for freeloaders, but a deserved payment for service, which i agree with. but now think about how some conservative assholes and trolls today think things like funding basic education and basic healthcare are entitlements for undeserved freeloaders. now think about how such ignorant opposition to progress today will be viewed in the future, like you and i read past opposition the gi bill today
everyone deserves a good education. or we do not really live in a meritocracy