Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.


New internet censorship bill with even more exploitative name.

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
Now who's trolling?

Nothing he said was left or right, and the issue of internet censorship/privacy is bipartisan in both it's support and it's opposition. It crosses party and ideological lines all over the place so don't try to paint this as a conservative thing.
I think the "Conservative" part was a reaction to the whole, 'Back in my day we all got together and lynched anyone we suspected. Because we all KNEW they were guilty.' (paraphrasing here) comment. That type of thinking is a well known conservative stereotype. To Kill A Mockingbird anyone?

And it's pretty obvious from their other posts in this thread that the Agrilicious is either a hyper-conservative, or (far more likely from his self-contradictory views) a troll.

Oh, my...heaven's to Betsy! How crazy can everyone get?

OK, the 'lynching', Dire Lint, to which you aver, I ruled out. Those are your words only. Social ostracism, an alternative I suggested, will probably happen anyway, will it not? Lord Ben is right - it's not a conservative OR liberal idea - it's strictly a Libertarian, non-government concept.

Yae, I was over the top with that paragraph, and it brought out of the woodwork a lot of hyper-libertarian comments. I certainly don't, Inscribed, believe that what I said 'incited' anyone with the compulsion to go out and meet in some garage Saturday night and form a vigilante group...now, really, do you believe so? But I applaud your decision to call the mods and would heartily suggest to Plugsy that this is a strangely and unnecisarily mutated discussion, and deserves the axe.

Yes, UmbreonMessiah, I WAS just askin'. Although I still believe in what I questioned, that some rights have to be modified for the common good (aren't we already subject to internet searches to an unacceptible degree?), I respect your right to find umbrage in my questions and scenarios. Not that I respect your right to label me as a troll, but that's up to you.

Who was it, Socrates, who made people think and found out about their ideas, by asking a lot of questions? I won't do that here anymore - I don't like hemlock juice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agricolous
OK, the 'lynching', Dire Lint, to which you aver, I ruled out. Those are your words only.
Well, you did say that you were suggesting a violent answer to deal with these people, so it's pretty easy to see how that might have been interpreted as you being in support of lynchings. It's also easy to see how you might, in fact, be suggesting that you would like to "go out and meet in some garage Saturday night and form a vigilante group", even if that is not your intent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agricolus View Post
You know, I may sound like an old fogey here - actually, the dead giveaway is that most people don't use the word 'fogey' anymore. But back in the day (another fogeyism), child abusers were handled by the people. Not necessarily lynch mobs, mind ya, but through social ostracism and even, at times, a little bar room violence. Then, the police would look the other way. Now, it's the vigilante who is considered the greatest perpetrator, if he indeed ever gets the chance to do something.

I'm not suggesting such a violent answer to such a heinous crime... thinking... thinking.... well, maybe I am. The usual response is "Well, what if he's really innocent?" Puppy crap. People know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agricolous
Who was it, Socrates, who made people think and found out about their ideas, by asking a lot of questions? I won't do that here anymore - I don't like hemlock juice.
Socrates is indeed the philosopher you are thinking of; however, his method of teaching involved asking questions in order to cause the subject to examine their own beliefs, presuppositions, and information about a problem in order to better find an answer. You are merely putting "Just akin'..." at the end of rambling posts with little relevance to the original discussion.


Back on topic, this bill is ridiculous, and I think ISPs would fight it as hard as consumer protection groups, as storing all of the relevant information would be an expensive pain in the butt. And if the ISPs don't support it, it's likely dead in the water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryfte View Post
Optimal solution:

Get all those people that enjoy being watched... and the people that have a compulsion to do so together... leave the rest of us alone.

There's a cartoon in there somewhere I think...
More like a pseudo-reality series called Big Brother.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Agricolus View Post
Oh, my...heaven's to Betsy! How crazy can everyone get?

OK, the 'lynching', Dire Lint, to which you aver, I ruled out. Those are your words only. Social ostracism, an alternative I suggested, will probably happen anyway, will it not? Lord Ben is right - it's not a conservative OR liberal idea - it's strictly a Libertarian, non-government concept.

Yae, I was over the top with that paragraph, and it brought out of the woodwork a lot of hyper-libertarian comments. I certainly don't, Inscribed, believe that what I said 'incited' anyone with the compulsion to go out and meet in some garage Saturday night and form a vigilante group...now, really, do you believe so? But I applaud your decision to call the mods and would heartily suggest to Plugsy that this is a strangely and unnecisarily mutated discussion, and deserves the axe.

Yes, UmbreonMessiah, I WAS just askin'. Although I still believe in what I questioned, that some rights have to be modified for the common good (aren't we already subject to internet searches to an unacceptible degree?), I respect your right to find umbrage in my questions and scenarios. Not that I respect your right to label me as a troll, but that's up to you.

Who was it, Socrates, who made people think and found out about their ideas, by asking a lot of questions? I won't do that here anymore - I don't like hemlock juice.
I was talking about the overall impression you give. Not just the part about lynchings. Vigilantism may be a traditionally Libertarian idea, but infringing people's personal liberties in a way that's mostly unrelated to what those social liberties are supposedly being restricted in order to oppose most definitely is not. Vigilante justice is one of the things conservatives generally seem to feel fits with their beliefs, therefore, in combination with your other arguments, you appear to be either a hyper-conservative... or a troll. And as already stated, yes you did advocate lynchings. Not in a perfectly concise statement such as "I advocate lynchings" but you did pretty much just say 'I don't advocate lynchings, well ok maybe I do, and there's no way anyone who isn't guilty would ever suffer for this because people just know.' Which is about as much of a stereotypically neo-conservative statement as one can make without mentioning Christianity. The fact that you liken yourself to Socrates simply because you said "Just askin'" at the end of several of your statements is another example of trollish behavior, and the simple fact that you even said "just askin'" over and over after making such obviously controversial statements is probably the most damning evidence of trolling. "Just askin'" basically means: "I've just said a bunch of stuff I know you'll probably disagree with or even take offense to but I'm not going to back it up with anything because I don't care enough to do anything more than rub it in your face."

Maybe you honestly don't understand what your actions look like to the rest of us, but that really doesn't help because there's no way for us to know that, since anything you could say at this point is just as likely to be a continuation of your (hypothetical) little game.

OT: I suppose there I kinda missed the boat on this one. If I'd posted a few months ago it might have been worth getting really worked up about, but at this point it's mostly just a wait and watch. Still, I do think we really should watch. These bills are starting to feel like cats in Dwarf Fortress. They just keep popping up and you have to keep on top of them or soon you'll be running at 3 frames per second with a horde of cats you can't kill without making the dwarves they've adopted go into a tantrum spiral.

Why is it either hyper conservative or a troll? Is there anything there to rule out both? A hyper-conservative troll is not unheard of. I've even been on boards where they abounded, looking for someone to take offense and say something directed at them, which they would then report to teh mods in order to dominate the forums.
Just askin :P

I think we all tend to separate conservatives and liberals from libertarians as a linear relationship. It's more of a triangular relationship. I've met a few liberals and a few conservatives who also believe in less intrusion. I was taught as a youth that liberals believe in a liberal interpretation of the constitution, conservatives, the other. That would tend to create a three- way separation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dire Lint View Post
Vigilante justice is one of the things conservatives generally seem to feel fits with their beliefs, therefore, in combination with your other arguments, you appear to be either a hyper-conservative... or a troll
You apparently weren't around for the Occupy thread or you'd be accusing the Occupy movement of being hyper conservative for all the calls to line up bankers against a wall and shoot them. I think your argument for "hyper conservative" falls apart and betrays quite a bit of bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Ben View Post
You apparently weren't around for the Occupy thread or you'd be accusing the Occupy movement of being hyper conservative for all the calls to line up bankers against a wall and shoot them. I think your argument for "hyper conservative" falls apart and betrays quite a bit of bias.
Some might say there is a difference between spur of the moment statements fueled by anger and long-held positions. At least I don't remember calls for murder featuring anywhere on anything resembling an 'official' document produced by the Occupy movement.

It seemed to me that the general view was that *unspecified penalties/bad things* should apply to the irresponsible bankers i.e. there should be some form of punishment for wrongdoing rather than continuing in their roles as if nothing happened. I guess that doesnt make for as impressive a soundbite.




 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status