Quantcast
'Live Explosive Device' Targets CNN At Time Warner Center; Others [deskpro2k3 almost got blown up (again)]

Forums - Politics Discussion - 'Live Explosive Device' Targets CNN At Time Warner Center; Others [deskpro2k3 almost got blown up (again)]

Hiku said:
EricHiggin said: 

Other than during wartime correct? What if Trump never said anything close to inciting violence, but many of his well known, non political followers were? Are they off the hook? How much weight would they hold? What about if the followers of those followers who had fairly respectable numbers of followers on their social media platforms, were inciting violence? Do they get a free pass? They aren't all that important, and would be ant's considered to Trump right?

I would have to assume everyone below Trump wouldn't be guilty of anything because if they weren't getting it from Trump, then there wouldn't be anything to worry about since he would be the most influential. This would explain why it seems the lefty groups or individuals rarely get fingers pointed at them, because the Dems weren't really inciting violence until more recently and yet there was violence erupting from the left since Trump was voted in. So why is it that it must be Trump who's at fault?

Trump never gets under my skin or causes me to get upset, but my own PM, JT, a Liberal, who wouldn't dare say anything mean ever, makes my blood boil sometimes. So should we ban 'polite speech' so people like me aren't ever pushed over the edge? What makes people go crazy or get to the point of harmful physical violence can be so many different things that simply pointing to certain words said by someone isn't ever going to solve the problem. Now it may help in certain situations potentially, but why bother trying to help if your going to end up being blamed regardless? If the finger always gets pointed at you, then you might as well do whatever you want anyway, right?

When I say politicians shouldn't incite violence, I say so because of their influence. Needless to say, a non-politician with great influence would apply, and would not get a free pass. Alex Jones comes to mind as he got banned from various social media platforms after he made repeated gun slinging gestures while saying "He's gonna get it. It's not a joke", etc, regarding Robert Muller after describing what a monster he is and that he rapes little boys every day. And then he threw in "politically" just for plausible deniability. And he knows that his audience has gone into a pizza restaurant and shot up the place after he made similar conspiracy theories about Hillary having a sex pedophile ring in the basement. As well as multiple death threats to the parents of the children slaughtered at Sandy Hook, because he convinced his audience that they are diabolical people who would lie about their children getting shot.
And I was referring to unjustifiable violence. I don't agree with most wars to begin with. But if a country is under attack by another country's militia, responding to it is different than endorsing body slamming reporters for asking questions you don't like.
And which Dems are you referring to that are inciting violence?

And no, we shouldn't ban terms like "orange juice" because it may trigger the PTSD of a war vet who used that code word during the war. That's not reasonable. If someone goes crazy over that, it's not reasonable to hold you responsible for it.
However, one of the most influential people on the planet says he likes it when people body slam reporters, and then someone physically harms another reporter because of that, it is reasonable to hold him responsible for it.

I wouldn't exactly say your being totally unreasonable, but I find it extremely hard to believe you can strongly connect all those actions directly to only those 'initiators'. Just because they may have been the largest platforms where it was picked up by the masses, doesn't mean it was their idea. The idea holder should be much more at fault then the individual further spreading that idea. If it was such a horrible idea to begin with, it should have been made illegal. Again, this is a tricky thing to try an accomplish when you want free speech and the freedom that comes with it. 

You also can't know who else may have spread the idea if that certain individual hadn't done so already, and you can't know if those followers would have ever picked it up elsewhere, or eventually came up with it themselves. This also assumes that everyone in the spotlight is an extremely intelligent, moral, just, etc, individual, which many are not. Do we all have to vote now on who can become famous and influential, to make sure they don't ever cross the line, wherever it has moved since it last stood? When they get out of line, do we just ban them from the spotlight forever because apparently people never learn, whether that's the praised person or the follower?

Holder, Waters, Clinton, etc.

You don't want to ban "orange juice" but what about racist or sexist or homophobic words used by people that upsets or triggers or demeans them or anyone else? I won't mention them but I'm sure you can guess what kind of words I'm talking about. If we can help just one person isn't that worth it? If some people are willing to ban guns so less people get shot, and ban private pools so less people drown, then why not ban more words?

If Trump says he loves KFC, which he does, and someone goes out and eat's KFC, and get's fat or ill because of it, is it Trumps fault? Should he never mention what he eats, like McD's as well? Should we ban all that food?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
Hiku said:

When I say politicians shouldn't incite violence, I say so because of their influence. Needless to say, a non-politician with great influence would apply, and would not get a free pass. Alex Jones comes to mind as he got banned from various social media platforms after he made repeated gun slinging gestures while saying "He's gonna get it. It's not a joke", etc, regarding Robert Muller after describing what a monster he is and that he rapes little boys every day. And then he threw in "politically" just for plausible deniability. And he knows that his audience has gone into a pizza restaurant and shot up the place after he made similar conspiracy theories about Hillary having a sex pedophile ring in the basement. As well as multiple death threats to the parents of the children slaughtered at Sandy Hook, because he convinced his audience that they are diabolical people who would lie about their children getting shot.
And I was referring to unjustifiable violence. I don't agree with most wars to begin with. But if a country is under attack by another country's militia, responding to it is different than endorsing body slamming reporters for asking questions you don't like.
And which Dems are you referring to that are inciting violence?

And no, we shouldn't ban terms like "orange juice" because it may trigger the PTSD of a war vet who used that code word during the war. That's not reasonable. If someone goes crazy over that, it's not reasonable to hold you responsible for it.
However, one of the most influential people on the planet says he likes it when people body slam reporters, and then someone physically harms another reporter because of that, it is reasonable to hold him responsible for it.

I wouldn't exactly say your being totally unreasonable, but I find it extremely hard to believe you can strongly connect all those actions directly to only those 'initiators'. Just because they may have been the largest platforms where it was picked up by the masses, doesn't mean it was their idea. The idea holder should be much more at fault then the individual further spreading that idea. If it was such a horrible idea to begin with, it should have been made illegal. Again, this is a tricky thing to try an accomplish when you want free speech and the freedom that comes with it. 

You also can't know who else may have spread the idea if that certain individual hadn't done so already, and you can't know if those followers would have ever picked it up elsewhere, or eventually came up with it themselves. This also assumes that everyone in the spotlight is an extremely intelligent, moral, just, etc, individual, which many are not. Do we all have to vote now on who can become famous and influential, to make sure they don't ever cross the line, wherever it has moved since it last stood? When they get out of line, do we just ban them from the spotlight forever because apparently people never learn, whether that's the praised person or the follower?

Holder, Waters, Clinton, etc.

You don't want to ban "orange juice" but what about racist or sexist or homophobic words used by people that upsets or triggers or demeans them or anyone else? I won't mention them but I'm sure you can guess what kind of words I'm talking about. If we can help just one person isn't that worth it? If some people are willing to ban guns so less people get shot, and ban private pools so less people drown, then why not ban more words?

If Trump says he loves KFC, which he does, and someone goes out and eat's KFC, and get's fat or ill because of it, is it Trumps fault? Should he never mention what he eats, like McD's as well? Should we ban all that food?

It's fair to say one can't always pinpoint where a perpetrator got the idea from, unless it's specified, or they use some unique wording that can be traced to somewhere specific. However, I don't know that most of the blame should always fall on the originator of the idea. For example, let's say that I have 2 Twitter followers. And I post that "Oprah Winfrey raped and murdered 78 children." Then someone at CNN sees my Tweet, and management greenlights the story, and they broadcast it, as a fact, to millions of viewers. Would you hold me more responsible or to a higher standard than CNN? Because I don't think you should. They have a much greater responsibility than me because of their influence and the trust that has been placed on them over the years.
No obviously the entire blame would be put on them.

Regarding "voting on who gets to be influential", no. We hold them accountable for their mistakes.

Regarding "I love KFC", Trump didn't say something vague like "I love reporters". He said he loves a guy who can do a good body slam. This is referring to both a specific form of violence, and a specific incident. A more proper comparison involving KFC would be something like him saying "I love a guy who can shove a KFC chickenwing down someone's throat" after someone did just that, to one of his political opponents.

I get what you're saying, but it's not like this isn't a no brainer. That politicians or people of influence should not incite or endorse actual violence among the public. Especially when they're referring to actual incidents that transpired.

As for banning certain words, I think that should be up to each individual, or institution as they see fit for their situation. On this site for example, certain language will get you infractions or banned. Again, I think it's enough that we hold people responsible for their actions. If someone uses a word you think shouldn't be used in that context/for that purpose, you speak your mind and tell them how you feel about it.

And I guess Holder, Waters and Clinton are the ones you say incite violence?
Regarding Waters, I would say it was an irresponsible suggestion. But she wasn't inciting violence. You can't equate that to Trump specifically saying to knock someone out and that he'll pay the legal fees, or that he likes that a guy physically hurt a reporter. Some politicians won't listen unless they get directly confronted by people and yelled at. Like Jeff Flake. He seemingly changed his mind after that happened to him as he was getting in an elevator. Though I do think it's irresponsible to encourage angry people to gather in groups, as things not originally intended can occur. However there is no question about the intent behind "Knock the crap out of them. I'll pay for the legal fees".
As for Holder and Clinton, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Last edited by Hiku - on 04 November 2018

I feel like you’re splitting hairs here. You simply assigned a arbitrary technical criteria on what you consider dangerous. I feel any incitement can lead to violence and telling ppl to gather and aggresively harass can lead just as much to joking about punching someone and paying the legal bills. You can’t predict what angry and unhinged ppl would do, and masses of angry and unhinged ppl only amplifies the danger. I mean, what do you think would eventually happen? It’s like saying “go drink 2 liters of vodka and drive at full speed with your eyes closes” and saying “well I didn’t exactly tell him to drive into a dozen pedestrians, did I?”. I don’t buy into the whole “not-as-bad-by-technicality-I-define” logic.

How about Madonna talking about the White House or that actress whose name I can’t recall who held a depatitated head or that actor (was it Shia Lebouf?) who actually assaulted someone (the nazi guy I think)? Or the Rock in SNL “advocating” violence against GoP politicians by essentially brutalizing them (The Rock Obama skit)? Are those ppl Trump+ in scumminess? Did you consider what they said/did far worse? OR did you get a little chuckle or felt good when they said what they said? Be honest now.



Hiku said:
EricHiggin said:

I wouldn't exactly say your being totally unreasonable, but I find it extremely hard to believe you can strongly connect all those actions directly to only those 'initiators'. Just because they may have been the largest platforms where it was picked up by the masses, doesn't mean it was their idea. The idea holder should be much more at fault then the individual further spreading that idea. If it was such a horrible idea to begin with, it should have been made illegal. Again, this is a tricky thing to try an accomplish when you want free speech and the freedom that comes with it. 

You also can't know who else may have spread the idea if that certain individual hadn't done so already, and you can't know if those followers would have ever picked it up elsewhere, or eventually came up with it themselves. This also assumes that everyone in the spotlight is an extremely intelligent, moral, just, etc, individual, which many are not. Do we all have to vote now on who can become famous and influential, to make sure they don't ever cross the line, wherever it has moved since it last stood? When they get out of line, do we just ban them from the spotlight forever because apparently people never learn, whether that's the praised person or the follower?

Holder, Waters, Clinton, etc.

You don't want to ban "orange juice" but what about racist or sexist or homophobic words used by people that upsets or triggers or demeans them or anyone else? I won't mention them but I'm sure you can guess what kind of words I'm talking about. If we can help just one person isn't that worth it? If some people are willing to ban guns so less people get shot, and ban private pools so less people drown, then why not ban more words?

If Trump says he loves KFC, which he does, and someone goes out and eat's KFC, and get's fat or ill because of it, is it Trumps fault? Should he never mention what he eats, like McD's as well? Should we ban all that food?

It's fair to say one can't always pinpoint where a perpetrator got the idea from, unless it's specified, or they use some unique wording that can be traced to somewhere specific. However, I don't know that most of the blame should always fall on the originator of the idea. For example, let's say that I have 2 Twitter followers. And I post that "Oprah Winfrey raped and murdered 78 children." Then someone at CNN sees my Tweet, and management greenlights the story, and they broadcast it, as a fact, to millions of viewers. Would you hold me more responsible or to a higher standard than CNN? Because I don't think you should. They have a much greater responsibility than me because of their influence and the trust that has been placed on them over the years.
No obviously the entire blame would be put on them.

Regarding "voting on who gets to be influential", no. We hold them accountable for their mistakes.

Regarding "I love KFC", Trump didn't say something vague like "I love reporters". He said he loves a guy who can do a good body slam. This is referring to both a specific form of violence, and a specific incident. A more proper comparison involving KFC would be something like him saying "I love a guy who can shove a KFC chickenwing down someone's throat" after someone did just that, to one of his political opponents.

I get what you're saying, but it's not like this isn't a no brainer. That politicians or people of influence should not incite or endorse actual violence among the public. Especially when they're referring to actual incidents that transpired.

As for banning certain words, I think that should be up to each individual, or institution as they see fit for their situation. On this site for example, certain language will get you infractions or banned. Again, I think it's enough that we hold people responsible for their actions. If someone uses a word you think shouldn't be used in that context/for that purpose, you speak your mind and tell them how you feel about it.

And I guess Holder, Waters and Clinton are the ones you say incite violence?
Regarding Waters, I would say it was an irresponsible suggestion. But she wasn't inciting violence. You can't equate that to Trump specifically saying to knock someone out and that he'll pay the legal fees, or that he likes that a guy physically hurt a reporter. Some politicians won't listen unless they get directly confronted by people and yelled at. Like Jeff Flake. He seemingly changed his mind after that happened to him as he was getting in an elevator. Though I do think it's irresponsible to encourage angry people to gather in groups, as things not originally intended can occur. However there is no question about the intent behind "Knock the crap out of them. I'll pay for the legal fees".
As for Holder and Clinton, I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I would say myself you are just as guilty, based on the way in which you worded it, if what you said about Oprah wasn't definitely true. CNN also shouldn't ever pick that story up, without confirming it, so they would also be guilty. Now if you phrased it in a different way in which it was a little bit hard to tell whether you were joking or not, and you were joking, and CNN ran it because they didn't properly vett the claim, then you really wouldn't be at fault at all, and CNN would be mostly if not entirely at fault.

Ok, but who has the power to make them pay for their wrongdoings, are they moral and just people, and do they always make the right decisions? Social media only goes so far for the public, and not everyone in the public agree's, and how do you withhold your money to show your disgust if your also hurting many other innocent individuals because of it?

To what I would call a normal individual, sure, you have to say hateful things in a certain way, and mean them, for it to be considered promoting violence, but there are some who want to read between the lines, and they seem to be getting a lot of attention and are promoted, especially from the media. Why aren't those people or the media punished? Saying something like 'I like a guy who can do a good body slam', isn't much different to some people, then him posting a picture eating KFC or McD's. Some would say he's non verbally endorsing unhealthy food and obesity and because he's influential, people will also eat it and pay for it in a non violent way. Then you have to ask what's worse, a few violent followers which could lead to some injury or death, or a bunch of fat, unhealthy, or dead followers?

I mostly agree on the speech thing, as long as everyone in the group, etc, is reasonable about it. If someone isn't warned at least twice before being punished then I wouldn't be on board. I also would say that punishment should rarely be a permanent ban immediately. If you don't like that, it's a free Country, so only come here if you have to, follow the rules as your required, then leave, or don't come around at all if you don't have to. This idea of the rules having to always be the exact same everywhere doesn't make sense to me. The groups that are too restrictive will suffer one way or another eventually, so the system would mostly take care of itself as long as the overall amendment exists.

Waters was walking a super thin line. She was promoting stalking and harassment, was borderline pushing violence, and she wasn't exactly doing so in a calm cool manner. 'You get out and you create a crowd, you push back on them, and you tell them they're not welcome'. Pushing someone would be physical violence. Some may take what she meant to mean push back verbally, but some may take it as physically. Even Trump had to tell her to watch her words.

Holder said 'when they go low, we kick them', and he was talking about Republicans. He was taking Michelle Obama's 'we go high' line and instead of saying we go lower or something like that, he said 'we kick them'. That speaks for itself. Clinton said 'you cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about, that's why I believe that if we are fortunate enough, to win back the house and or the senate, that's when civility can start again.' She also makes a point about how it seems that Republicans only seem to understand and respect strength. Politics is not violence first, it's civil debate and discussion, and when that fails, it becomes violence when civility no longer is useful. The opposition also does not want to destroy the Dems, they simply prefer their way of governing, and the people chose that this time around. It's the Dems job to find out where they went wrong and what the people want and then offer it to them. The people don't buy into whatever the party is selling, the party caters to the people. That's how it works.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 05 November 2018

The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

 

so much sugarcoating goin on in the past few post. don't even try to sugarcoat this meme because you'll just eat this one up too.



Around the Network
deskpro2k3 said:

 

so much sugarcoating goin on in the past few post. don't even try to sugarcoat this meme because you'll just eat this one up too.

Since you said “past few post”, then I’m thinking you’re including me?

If that’s the case, then you might want to read back, I’ve addressed every response that was addressed to me pages ago, in fact it was my comments that were not addressed at all. Just simply dropped and never replied to. And the debate in this thread has gone on a circular loop now. So yeah, you got it backwards. If you feel that I didn’t reply to a claim addressed to me, pls post it then so I may do so. If your “past few post” comment didn’t include me, then feel free to carry on but be more accurate of your wording next time.



EricHiggin said:
Machiavellian said:

So if I get this right, If I tell someone to kill your kids and that person kills your kids, only the person who actually committed the act should be punish.  

As to your second paragraph, yeah that would be great.  If only there was a president who was smart enough to understand his position and increase jobs, reduce taxes but doesn't put the country into such debt that it will take decades to recover.  Oh well, as long as the economy is hot all is good huh.

Depends on your beliefs. Some people believe only the person who said it first should be totally guilty, some think the initiator should be more at fault but everyone is guilty to some degree, some think everyone is equally guilty, and some think only the act committer is guilty. I think everything factors into it one way or another. Just because someone 'said it first' doesn't necessarily mean they didn't learn or interpret that from something else that someone said or wrote before. How far back do we go? Just because someone takes action, doesn't mean they were specifically told to, or interpreted the meaning incorrectly.

I'm just saying to try and put complete blame on someone for saying something doesn't seem overly logical. I've been told/taught many things in my life, yet I don't do/follow many of them, since I don't agree and think they aren't useful or productive. Not everyone is like me though. So do we let everyone make up their own minds and hope for the best, or do we lead everyone by strict rules, or do we try and find a balance and just deal with the odd issue from time to time?

This is the problem.  You are still trying to rationalize what others would do to a direct question that I asked what would you do.  I will ask again, would YOU consider if a person tells someone to kill your kids equally to blame for the person killing your kids.  A lot of things change when it's personal.  We can always find some way to rationalize what some mythical other person would do.

As to another question that is direct to you and no rationalizing what others might do, are you saying that no matter what anyone says, if acts of violence is done because they promoted it they do not share any blame.



DrDoomz said:
deskpro2k3 said:

 

so much sugarcoating goin on in the past few post. don't even try to sugarcoat this meme because you'll just eat this one up too.

Since you said “past few post”, then I’m thinking you’re including me?

If that’s the case, then you might want to read back, I’ve addressed every response that was addressed to me pages ago, in fact it was my comments that were not addressed at all. Just simply dropped and never replied to. And the debate in this thread has gone on a circular loop now. So yeah, you got it backwards. If you feel that I didn’t reply to a claim addressed to me, pls post it then so I may do so. If your “past few post” comment didn’t include me, then feel free to carry on but be more accurate of your wording next time.

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 05 November 2018

Yeah. Lets get back on topic and stop the use of memes as a way to get your point across.



Machiavellian said:
EricHiggin said:

Depends on your beliefs. Some people believe only the person who said it first should be totally guilty, some think the initiator should be more at fault but everyone is guilty to some degree, some think everyone is equally guilty, and some think only the act committer is guilty. I think everything factors into it one way or another. Just because someone 'said it first' doesn't necessarily mean they didn't learn or interpret that from something else that someone said or wrote before. How far back do we go? Just because someone takes action, doesn't mean they were specifically told to, or interpreted the meaning incorrectly.

I'm just saying to try and put complete blame on someone for saying something doesn't seem overly logical. I've been told/taught many things in my life, yet I don't do/follow many of them, since I don't agree and think they aren't useful or productive. Not everyone is like me though. So do we let everyone make up their own minds and hope for the best, or do we lead everyone by strict rules, or do we try and find a balance and just deal with the odd issue from time to time?

This is the problem.  You are still trying to rationalize what others would do to a direct question that I asked what would you do.  I will ask again, would YOU consider if a person tells someone to kill your kids equally to blame for the person killing your kids.  A lot of things change when it's personal.  We can always find some way to rationalize what some mythical other person would do.

As to another question that is direct to you and no rationalizing what others might do, are you saying that no matter what anyone says, if acts of violence is done because they promoted it they do not share any blame.

You have to be more specific about the exact situation. Who said it? Were they the first? Did they get the idea from elsewhere? Did they have a reason to say that because of me? Did the person who did the crime plan on doing it anyway beforehand? Did the killer have a reason to do so because of me? Did the killer get anything else out of it, like money, and from who exactly? How many times has the killer committed a crime? Etc.

I don't necessarily think every single situation should fall under the exact same conclusion.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.