[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]

/ef/ - Everfree

A general discussion board with a laxer atmosphere and fewer rules. Keep adult content or controversial issues here.
Name
?

This field is optional. You can choose any name you want, or you can post anonymously by leaving this field empty.

Tripcodes are a way to identify yourself between posts without having to register with the site. To use a tripcode, enter your name as ‹name›#‹key›.You can choose anything you want as the key—it is private and will never be shown to other posters or stored on the server. For example:

Rarity#bestpony → Rarity!.4PK7yxdII

If you want a tripcode containing specific words, you can download a program designed to search for tripcodes, such as Tripcode Explorer.

Email?

Entering an e-mail is optional.

There are also code words you can enter here which perform certain actions when you submit your post.

  • sage — lets you post without bumping a thread.
  • nonoko — uses the original post behavior to redirect to the board index.

These can be used at the same time as an e-mail address by typing ‹email›#‹action›.

You can also use Skype names in place of an e-mail. The notation is the same as a link to a username on skype itself, which is skype:‹username›

Subject
Comment?
Giving emphasis
[b] Bold [/b] Ctrl + B
[i] Italic [/i] Ctrl + I
[u] Underlined [/u] Ctrl + U
[s] Strikethrough [/s] Ctrl + R
Hiding text
[?] Spoiler text [/?] Ctrl + S
[h] Hide block of text [/h] Ctrl + H
Special
[rcv] Royal Canterlot voice [/rcv] Ctrl + K
[shy] Fluttershy voice [/shy]
[cs] Comic Sans [/cs]
[tt] Monospaced [/tt]
[d20], [4d6] — Dice rolls
URLs and linking
Link to a post on the current board
>>1234
Link to another board
>>>/pony/
Link to a post on another board
>>>/pony/1234
Hypertext links
[url=https://www.ponychan.net/] Ponychan [/url]
File
Flag
Options
Password?

This field is for editing and deletions.


File: 1593143708294.png (184.69 KB, 1059x821, Untitled.png)

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid:   391706[View All]

345 posts and 264 image replies omitted. Click View to see all.

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393256

File: 1593658680568.gif (68.42 KB, 300x300, cacodemon-1733499.gif)

>>393250
Well, I suppose the 1960s were a politically volatile time. What about the 1990s and 2000-2010? I feel that this past decade has been worse than the preceding two decades. But maybe that's just my perspective since I was younger back then.

🦊!smiles.Drs (ID: 7e44ab)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  393257

File: 1593659240965.png (137.33 KB, 555x708, LW_Chewing.png)

>>393136
>your not allowed to post anti trump opinions or posts on thedonald, as they as a self described "24/7 high energy trump rally, no exceptions".
Is that a rule or just what they're going for? I don't post there so I honestly don't know.

>T_D would be forced to allow anti trump propaganda on their site

Cool. I mean I'm sure the userbase would just shout them out. Spam posts can be cleared away I can imagine without too much complaints.

>So, what im advocating is just as much protecting places like T_D as it is twitter.

I'm not.

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393258

>>393251
>>Twitter only does anything, because they think its what people want.
>this is objectively false
I think you're underestimating the ideological blinders of Twatter employees. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they really do honestly believe that they're doing what the people want. Have you ever been to San Francisco? It's like another country over there!

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393259

File: 1593659472026.png (176.24 KB, 600x600, TheDonald-rules.png)

>>393257
>Is that a rule
Yes.

🦊!smiles.Drs (ID: 7e44ab)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  393260

File: 1593659534247.png (180.5 KB, 572x748, LW_unsure.png)

>>393259
That's very gay of them.
It's not even pride month anymore either.

Mk17 (ID: 9976f0)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393261

File: 1593660159648.png (455.45 KB, 811x824, Screenshot_2018-08-05-23-21-51…)

>>393251
>But the point is, if you don't go out of your way to engage in retributive cancel culture, then you get cancelled, and they don't - even though they are hypocrites regardless.
And so are you.
>Yes. How big is your YouTube channel?
I've never seen you post political stuff on your YouTube channel, you mostly talk about uber and play political strategy games. The last one i saw you were trying to create a more liberal government to inspire more people to immigrate to beat the game mechanics.
Also, a few posts ago you were saying i have a ton of influence haha, so which is it?
>Did I say that?
Idk, thats why i asked you to clarify.
>What's your point?
To find out what you meant.
>Death is worse
I suppose thats the answer
>so I shouldn't care about cancel culture?
Never said that, asked if it has the same "cost of freedom" excuse.
>"what about this other issue that I care more about"
Putting words in my mouth, im not saying one is more important than the other, simply making a comparison with the assumption that they are equally important.
>doesn't negate my concerns about a different issue
They are both amendments to the bill of rights, so they are comparable.
>did I? when did I do that?
You have expressed opinions that you are pro second ammendment and dont think reatrictions should be put in place just because of misuses of the freedom, have you not?
>I do agree, but that doesn't mean I dismiss it.
Theres one right there.
>the direct impact is much smaller, but the cascading impacts are much wider.
Elaborate.
>wrong, they ban people who offend either a) the platform/mods/staff or b) the vocal users
Wrong? So they don't ban people who offend the majority?
>this is objectively false, unless by "people" you mean the ones doing the thing itself.
I dont understand what you mean by "the ones doing the thing itself". Rephrase or clarify, please.
>this whole "let them build up the town square and then pull the rug out from under everyone they disagree with" by virtue of being a "private company" is disingenuous BS.
Is being disingenuous illegal? I dont think he was under oath.
If he wasnt under oath, then its free speech, and shouldn't we salute him for excercizing his rights? Or is it just the people who shit post "niggers need to die" that deserve our admiration and protection?
Agian, i dont see you fighting to lift rules banning doxxing, which we agree is also free speech, rules banning violent and racist rhetoric get criticism though.
>Is that true?
It varies by jurisdiction.
https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2018/01/is-doxing-illegal.html
>yes.
See >>393255
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393262

File: 1593660290887.png (1.08 MB, 668x1024, asasafafttr.png)

>>393255 The former.
>>393258 You've got a point there. Or perhaps they just don't consider people who disagree with them to be people.
>>393233
>So that being the case, if cancellation is doxxing, and doxxing is free speech, and any platform that dosen't protect free speech should lose all legal protections, then any site that prohibits doxxing of users should lose all legal protections in your opinion, right?
Well first off cancellation is not doxxing, but doxxing is free speech. Let's be clear, not all free speech is legal - nor should it be (e.g. child porn). Platforms that don't protect legal free speech shouldn't lose all protections - but they should lose those protections that are reserved for the public square. And if a site wants to restrict doxxing, which is not illegal as of now, then yes - it should lose the protections. But I also wouldn't have a problem with doxxing being made illegal through legislation or whathaveyou - which would make it possible to restrict doxxing and retain the protections.
>So good. You are advocating for an internet that not only accepts cancel culture, but actively permits it on all platforms.
Not exactly.
>No an internet i would advocate for if you're also under the opinion that doxing is = or > murder.
Well good, because that isn't what I said, but nice strawman.
>>And what happens when an Amendment takes those rights away?
>But, since this is hypothetical, i would probably continue to act as if nothing had changed, much like weed being a felony didnt really stop people from smoking it.
It sounds like the law itself is irrelevant to you in that case.
>The thing about the bill of right is, its inalienable, its not permission to do something, that can be taken away, its a reminder of what you as a human will always be able to do.
Have you ever heard of the 21st amendment? They can very much be taken away.
>>And if you don't have a good and appropriate reason, would you care?
>Care about what? To what level?
Let's say, if the law was "if you say nigger, you will go to jail for 60 days", and you don't have a good and justifiable reason to say "nigger", would you care about the law as a restriction of your rights, or would you just go along with it?
>>I wouldn't expect you to get violent over it.
>So what do you mean by all this "we must do what is necessary" stuff? Complain more?
fight fire with fire

more to come

Mk17 (ID: 9976f0)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393265

File: 1593661237290.png (198.27 KB, 323x424, 5465132.PNG)

>>393256
>the 1990s
Ruby ridge, Waco, nation wide militia movement, nation wide AWB, atf agents being killed, the rise of mass shootings, Oklahoma city bombings, first world trade center attack.
>2000-2010
the battle for Seattle, 2nd more impressive WTC attack, patriot act, war protests, tea party movement, Republican obstructionism in Congress, george Bush is a nazi, rise of loljournalism.

Idk man, im not an encyclopedia, so these are not exhaustive lists. All im saying is the events of today are not unprecedented.

>>393257
>Is that a rule or just what they're going for?
Its a rule, they were much more clear when they were a sub on reddit that they would b+d all trump criticism.
>I mean I'm sure the userbase would just shout them out. Spam posts can be cleared away I can imagine without too much complaints.
Its really the updoot button that needs to be spammed.
Can be like 4 or 5 posts, its writing bots to keep adding upvotes is what is effective.
Thats one of the reasons T_D was so restricted on reddit in the first place, they would spam vote all their posts to the front page.

>I'm not.

So you're good with popular right wing outlets being shut down the same way as twitter?

>>393260
>That's very gay
Ur geh

>more to come

Hoboy haha.
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393266

File: 1593661720959.jpg (158.8 KB, 898x889, chief_prosecutor_of_the_pie_fa…)

>>393234
>I live on on the twilight edge of where urban, suburban and rural sprawl meet. In 10 minutes can be downtown at an art gallery, or in the middle of the woods hunting squirrel. I can touch my house and the house next to mine at the same time, and the house next to mine is split up into appartments that are mostly occupied by section 8 immigrants and white trash domestic abusers. Just because my power bill is low, doesn't mean im not impacted by the goings on of society.
How much time and effort do you spend interacting with that society? I for one am surrounded by a city I have no connection to. It's not difficult to be isolated, regardless of how many people surround you. The more important question, though, is your reliance on that society. And it sounds like you are pretty self-reliant. Hence why I think you can get by regardless of the world burning around you.
>Yes, i will protect myself and my family, because that is what im responsible for, and i advocate others do the same, and in that way we will all be protected.
That's pretty vague. It sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice, it could mean anything.
>>This is why I said (as above) you're unlikely to be effected.
>I believe this will be my fourth time saying the word nigger in this conversation.
>I exercise other rights when i want to as well.
yeah, that's what I mean. "when you want to" is different from "because you can" or "because you should be able to" or "because no one else should have a say in it"
>>Your concern seems to be for "things Mk does"
>Please dont tell me what i think, ask me, before this becomes a personal attack shitstorm.
I said "seems" for a reason, because that is the impression I have gotten. I was hoping you'd clarify if it were incorrect.
>>And the thing you do are unlikely to draw any attention to yourself.
>Oh yes, if there is one thing about me, its my meekness in expressing my opinion and my non confrontational nature ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
Where you're confrontational, are you seeking to change anything about the outside world? because if you aren't, then I don't see why the outside world would take issue with you.
>>My point was that arguing principles has no effect on someone who doesn't care about principles.
>Maybe its not directly for their benifit i argue.
Sure. I believe you said it's to hone your mind or skills in logic or something to that effect. which is fine. In the cases I'm describing, I'm not arguing for their direct benefit either.
>>The "right" (everyone from center left and over) has become the de facto side of free speech
>Unless its something they dont like, like cancel culture.
Are you familiar with the "liberal paradox"? Because what I'm proposing is a solution, rather than rolling over and dying.
>>so I'm not sure what you think even the hardest line ultra-conservatives would want to cancel you over.
>Expressing my opinion, as they are apparently fighting fire with fire and accepting cancel culture, are you not arguing that necessity?
Are you trying to cancel people? If not, then it would be fighting [a lack of fire] with [nothing]. That's the whole point of reciprocity. and the whole point of what I've been saying.
>Not that they haven't done it forever, because they are just a bunch of people, and some people do that reguardless, but now its not even taboo. I find that more untrustworthy than the left who just always admitted to doing it, because at least you know where they stand.
Sure? but I'm not still living in the 90s.
>Also, I didnt say the hardest ultra- conservatives, it could also be just someone who joined the right to pick a side.
like myself? again, unless you're using the tactics of the Left, then I have no reason to use the Left's tactics against you
>>but not before destroying everything possible
>Such as?
nuking the remaining speech (not free speech) capabilities of the Right entirely, to sway opinion, especially just before the election

Mk17 (ID: 9976f0)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393269

File: 1593662458667.png (289.14 KB, 521x498, 15846545454.PNG)

>>393262
>cancellation is not doxxing
Its exposing things people have said in public or private and associating their real name with it, if need be. With the caveat of demanding they be fired, which is still free speech.
>But I also wouldn't have a problem with doxxing being made illegal through legislation or whathaveyou
So saying someones real name you wouldn't mind being illegal, but saying you think black people need to be shot in the streets is worth fighting for?
Neither should be imprisonable offensives, (barring the specificity of the ladder) but both should be able to be restricted on private property.
>strawman
Not a strawman. I said if your under that impression, and i asked you earlier to clarify that position.
Plus, i used "you" ubiquitously.
>It sounds like the law itself is irrelevant to you in that case.
Laws are suggestions, and laws that infringe on your rights or are unjust are not to be obeyed. If you choose to disobey them, you are told the consequences, but ultimately the choice is yours to decide if its worth it. That is the responsibility of freedom.
>Have you ever heard of the 21st amendment? They can very much be taken away.
You can erase the words on paper, yes, that doesn't mean you've taken away the right.
The rights are natural rights, not man made.
Agian, its not telling you what you can and cant do, its reminding government what they will never be able to stop.
>Let's say, if the law was "if you say nigger, you will go to jail for 60 days", and you don't have a good and justifiable reason to say "nigger", would you care about the law as a restriction of your rights, or would you just go along with it?
I would argue against it, yes. I dont think i would kill to stop it, but i would also still say nigger when i felt it was necessary reguardless of it.
>fight fire with fire
Are you willing to take a bullet in the war you perpetuate?

Goodnight.
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393270

File: 1593662501952.png (122.44 KB, 847x508, 679938.png)

>>393234
>>It's not ineffective just because Marxists say it. In fact, it's the reason Marxism has a major advantage over liberalism.
>But it is still just as bad.
I agree.
>The only reason liberals dont have an advantage it because they consistantly comprise their principles to join sides and fight fire with fire.
No, the reason they lose is because they hold to their principles, and lose to those without principles.
>Liberalism is in its root individualism, and individuals dont collectivise.
And unfortunately, in the battle of individual vs mob, the mob wins. It's a numbers game.
>>In the short term, be vocal about the dangers of leftist ideology. We'll see where it goes from there.
>Thats what antifa folks said too, but about the right.
Don't push back against the terrorists, because it would be unprincipled to do so. In fact, turn the other cheek and let them keep wailing on you.
>>The difference is that back then, we didn't have two factions that each consider the other to be essentially evil and beyond redemption.
>Yes we did, unless we studied different histories, it was still the left and the right and the Republicans and Democrats. I dont remeber hearing about all the 3rd 4th and 5th parties in the game.
You missed the part about consider the other to be essentially evil and beyond redemption.
>>Individual events may have been worse, but the nation as a whole is much worse now.
>Its still individual events now, the information is just more prolific. The news was a half hour in the evening, not 24 a day, and the best internet we had was the telephone.
It's not just that. It's the divide between left and right that is worse.
>>No, probably 12 years. But he'll be the catalyst.
>This has been said about every single president.
only lately.
>>assuming they had the Senate and POTUS to rubber stamp it.
>So if trump wins, you will be able to rest easy and the fight will be over? Well thank goodness for that.
That is not what I said.
>I think the fight your fighting has gone on since time immemorial, because people who like to fight like to fight, and they will always find something to fight about.
People have been fighting. The fight has changed.
>>I hope you're right.
>About what? You quoted 2 things.
about me being wrong.
>>We have already been divided. Not fighting back ensures being conquered.
>Have you considered fighting against the force dividing us, rather than giving in to what they want?
Could you be more specific? What force are you referring to? Who are you referring to? What do you think they want?
>If you know this isna divide and conquer technique, why is your instinct to "choose a side"?
Because one side is fundamentally unable to compromise.
>>And when Twitter isn't reigned in, and instead, ensures that political debate ceases to be meaningful by restricting debate itself, that anyone they disagree with is demonized as a matter of course, and is one of the many pieces that fall into place to ensure that elections become meaningless, and people just go along with it for various reasons, I wonder what your take will be.
>I dont understand why you think twitter is the most powerful thing mankind has ever created.
It isn't. It's just in a position, at this time, to have a disproportionately massive impact on our politics and our society. and burying our heads in the sand doesn't change that.

🦊!smiles.Drs (ID: e20a05)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  393271

File: 1593662815296.png (43.83 KB, 350x561, LuciHT.png)

>>393265
I'm happy with everyone being made to respect free speech.
I don't think The Don is exempted from having to respect free speech.

Though I think we can start with the biggests ones first.

Anonymous (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393272

File: 1593662976299.jpg (173.43 KB, 640x480, 1388259730465.jpg)

>>393269
>So saying someones real name you wouldn't mind being illegal, but saying you think black people need to be shot in the streets is worth fighting for?
IMHO, both can illegal, depending on context. If you're trying to incite imminent lawless conduct, the speech can be punished. In the context of the ongoing racial protests/riots, saying "black people need to be shot in the streets" could very well be taken as inciting imminent unlawful violence. And likewise, doxxing someone could, depending on context, be taken as inciting unlawful harassment of them.

Edit: Oh, my name fell off again.
This post was edited by its author on .

Mk17 (ID: 9976f0)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393273

File: 1593663488688.png (333.15 KB, 604x423, 1545630603814.png)

>>393271
T_D is pretty big, if their numbers are to be believed.

I can at least respect your consistency of thought, but, i still disagree. If a site wants to be a circle jerk, i think it has the right to, without having to worry about being deplatformed by people who want to raid it.
Its like when Jordan Peterson gives a speech, people dont have the right to go onto that private property, even if its an open invite lecture, and shout him down. He has the right to say what he wants to say unimpeded while he is on his platform.
Likewise, T_D built its own platform, and shouldnt have to worry about people jumping up on it and twerking haha.



>>393272
>IMHO, both can illegal, depending on context.
Thats how i feel about making rules against it on sites.
Context matters. I mean, i literally just said it haha, but i had to, to talk about saying it. Thats why i hate when people say "the n word". Just say it. Your making me think it, so own it and say it.
But, its hard to legislate for context, which is why judges and jurors, and likewise mods and users exist.
This post was edited by its author on .

🦊!smiles.Drs (ID: e20a05)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  393274

File: 1593663707504.png (740.22 KB, 1200x1600, 001c8f4b0da5a5928d3c73fc769f99…)

>>393273
700K potential users is small potatoes in comparison to the 10's and 100's of millions of users companies like Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook show.

I feel you though.

Mk17 (ID: 9976f0)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393275

>>393274
>700K potential users is small potatoes in comparison to the 10's and 100's of millions of users companies like Twitter, Youtube, and Facebook show.
Again, if the numbers are to be believed.
YouTube's numbers are probably pretty damn high though.
Twitter, im not so sure that's legit, they arnt really a company i would take on its word tbh haha
This post was edited by its author on .

🦊!smiles.Drs (ID: 7e44ab)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  393277

File: 1593664365136.jpg (513.75 KB, 2560x4096, ee3ddfc2840e072dfcd1f4dedaf711…)

>>393275
Well we can't know for sure, but I'm just taking twitter at their word for the sake of the conversation.

Mk17 (ID: 9976f0)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393278

>>393277
Fair enough, its the only data we have.
But that video i made a thread about the other day pointed out some evidence that a good portion of those numbers are just bots and over estimates.
I mean, who the fuck would use twitter? Site is a joke.

The only people i know that use twitter are ideologs who want to screech, boomer politicians and corporations who are always years behind tends chasing the screetchers, and the news media that chases them.

Everyone else uses whatsapp and tictok and shit. Not that id use ether one haha.
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393279

File: 1593664683625.jpg (170.06 KB, 1091x1024, 577.jpeg)

>>393261
>>But the point is, if you don't go out of your way to engage in retributive cancel culture, then you get cancelled, and they don't - even though they are hypocrites regardless.
>And so are you.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Or feel free to tell me how you think I'm being a hypocrite.
>I've never seen you post political stuff on your YouTube channel, you mostly talk about uber and play political strategy games. The last one i saw you were trying to create a more liberal government to inspire more people to immigrate to beat the game mechanics.
I have 2600+ videos. They've been scattered in between, and the most recent one about China and censorship was deleted. But I will be posting explicitly political videos starting soon (pending a new camera).
>Also, a few posts ago you were saying i have a ton of influence haha, so which is it?
You have influence, but you're less likely to be cancelled.
>Putting words in my mouth, im not saying one is more important than the other, simply making a comparison with the assumption that they are equally important.
No; I don't think they're equally important.
>>doesn't negate my concerns about a different issue
>They are both amendments to the bill of rights, so they are comparable.
comparable, yes.
>You have expressed opinions that you are pro second ammendment and dont think reatrictions should be put in place just because of misuses of the freedom, have you not?
I rarely talk about the second Amendment, so I think you probably have me confused with someone else. I am not a "shall not be infringed" = "zero restrictions" advocate. In large part, I don't care one way or the other.
>>I do agree, but that doesn't mean I dismiss it.
>Theres one right there.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>>the direct impact is much smaller, but the cascading impacts are much wider.
>Elaborate.
A murder has a massive impact on the immediate family, close relatives, the immediate community, and close friends. Unless the murder is politicized, it will have little impact outside this group, and life will go on, with no one's perceptions outside of this group being changed as a result. Restricting speech in a coordinated manner impacts the perceptions of everyone who would have otherwise come into contact with that speech, and those impacts will in turn impact the perceptions of anyone who would have come into contact via second order, and so on, and so on. As an example, when Facebook deletes a viral video of a liberal who says they will be voting for Trump (this just happened IRL), they do so because a lack of positive messaging impacts the perceptions of others, and removes the possibility of swaying others who might be on the fence. Removing positive messaging leaves negative messaging, and thereby sways votes. Whether you think this should be the case or not in a perfect world is irrelevant, because this is the case in the real world.
>>wrong, they ban people who offend either a) the platform/mods/staff or b) the vocal users
>Wrong? So they don't ban people who offend the majority?
correct. they ban people who offend the wrong group(s).
>>this is objectively false, unless by "people" you mean the ones doing the thing itself.
>I dont understand what you mean by "the ones doing the thing itself". Rephrase or clarify, please.
i.e. if you offend a moderator, expect to be banned.
>>this whole "let them build up the town square and then pull the rug out from under everyone they disagree with" by virtue of being a "private company" is disingenuous BS.
>Is being disingenuous illegal? I dont think he was under oath.
Suddenly you don't care about principles. Can I believe anything you say to me if you aren't under oath?
>If he wasnt under oath, then its free speech, and shouldn't we salute him for excercizing his rights?
the right to... lie to congress? sure, that's some next level free speech.
>Or is it just the people who shit post "niggers need to die" that deserve our admiration and protection?
You don't have to admire something to protect it.
>Agian, i dont see you fighting to lift rules banning doxxing, which we agree is also free speech, rules banning violent and racist rhetoric get criticism though.
because the "right" to dox people is not as important as the "right" of people to express opinions which are unambiguously legal? Because edge cases are less important than the general rule? because you ignored what I said previously about my take on doxxing?
>It varies by jurisdiction.
>https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2018/01/is-doxing-illegal.html
good to know.
>>yes.
>See >>393255
see >>393262
>>>393255 The former.

🦊!smiles.Drs (ID: 7e44ab)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  393280

File: 1593665056177.png (915.89 KB, 873x1200, b9d2944301123b35914e8f0c22f695…)

>>393278
>330 Million Active Monthly Users
Even if I simply accept your skepticism and discount 80% of the active monthly users we are still left with 66 million Active Monthly Users - squarely in the 10's of millions.

That's still massive by every measurement.
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393281

File: 1593665980272.png (1.02 MB, 1024x1024, asafafgg.png)

>>393269
>>cancellation is not doxxing
>Its exposing things people have said in public or private and associating their real name with it, if need be. With the caveat of demanding they be fired, which is still free speech.
That's not necessarily true, but I'll give it a pass.
>>But I also wouldn't have a problem with doxxing being made illegal through legislation or whathaveyou
>So saying someones real name you wouldn't mind being illegal,
yes - this is essentially a terroristic threat
>but saying you think black people need to be shot in the streets is worth fighting for?
correct - this is not a terroristic threat, despite being deplorable
>Neither should be imprisonable offensives, (barring the specificity of the ladder)
the first should be actionable. not necessarily imprisonable. the second is not a threat.
>but both should be able to be restricted on private property.
as long as that private property is not the public square (nor has its protections)
>Not a strawman. I said if your under that impression, and i asked you earlier to clarify that position.
>Plus, i used "you" ubiquitously.
alright then.
>>It sounds like the law itself is irrelevant to you in that case.
>Laws are suggestions, and laws that infringe on your rights or are unjust are not to be obeyed.
>If you choose to disobey them, you are told the consequences, but ultimately the choice is yours to decide if its worth it. That is the responsibility of freedom.
1) Laws are proscriptions - not suggestions.
2) The laws you consider to be unjust are going to be context dependent, as I alluded to when I distinguished between "can do" "do" and "want to do", so your statement is not universally applicable.
3) Just because you think something is unjust, doesn't mean everyone/anyone agrees with you, and vice versa. The 'consent of the governed' goes both ways.
4) Your statement, though idealistic, does not reflect reality.
>>Have you ever heard of the 21st amendment? They can very much be taken away.
>You can erase the words on paper, yes, that doesn't mean you've taken away the right.
In effect, it does.
>The rights are natural rights, not man made.
Tell that to the socialists.
>Agian, its not telling you what you can and cant do, its reminding government what they will never be able to stop.
see above
>>Let's say, if the law was "if you say nigger, you will go to jail for 60 days", and you don't have a good and justifiable reason to say "nigger", would you care about the law as a restriction of your rights, or would you just go along with it?
>I would argue against it, yes. I dont think i would kill to stop it, but i would also still say nigger when i felt it was necessary reguardless of it.
Again, I wouldn't expect you to kill over it. Would you stop at arguing? Would you go out of your way to say "nigger" to land yourself in jail as a matter of protest? Would you say "nigger" and challenge the authorities to come after you? Or would it just be a minor thing you'd mention in passing and not make a big deal about?
>>fight fire with fire
>Are you willing to take a bullet in the war you perpetuate?
Yes.

>Goodnight.

Good night.

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393282

File: 1593666453975.jpg (122.06 KB, 1440x1080, 1465662270548.jpg)

>>393279
>I am not a "shall not be infringed" = "zero restrictions" advocate.
What, you don't support my right to mail-order a suppressed short-barreled 20mm-caliber machine gun without a background check?  (Haha, I'm just kidding!) 

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393284

File: 1593666993721.gif (333.7 KB, 600x338, 579353.gif)

>>393282 only in cases where there's no attached grenade launcher

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393285

File: 1593667054959.png (304.45 KB, 900x603, my_little_goomba__mushrooms_ar…)

>>393281
>>but saying you think black people need to be shot in the streets is worth fighting for?
>correct - this is not a terroristic threat, despite being deplorable
But can't it be incitement of imminent unlawful violence, depending on context? Like, if Alice makes a thread about her plans to carry while attending a counterprotest against BLM, and she asks what she should do at the counterprotest, and Bob makes a post saying "black people need to be shot in the streets", I think Bob's post crosses the line from protected free speech into punishable incitement.

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393286

File: 1593667257574.gif (394.86 KB, 380x380, 576660.gif)

>>393285 yes, I saw that discussion up above. it can be, but isn't necessarily. the other (doxxing) is always.

(ID: d7c537)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393315

File: 1593672887691.png (353.87 KB, 557x703, 989870987876.png)

>>393282
>What, you don't support my right to mail-order a suppressed short-barreled 20mm-caliber machine gun without a background check?
i do

Anonymous (ID: b8acab)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393327

>>393315
Seconded.
As long as it is man-portable, I say you ought to be able to own it.

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393328

File: 1593691796794.jpg (49.32 KB, 640x500, gun-1934-school-shootings.jpg)

>>393315
>>393327
Sometimes I wonder how many murders are prevented by gun control. I expect it's very few. And it might even be responsible for a net increase of murders, due to disarming people who would have stopped mass shooters.

OTOH, if the Hughes Amendment were repealed and the NFA waiting time were reduced to 2 weeks (edit: and anyone who wouldn't pass a background check were entitled to a prompt individualized judicial determination of whether they still pose such an elevated risk as to be denied their civil rights), I don't think the current system would be too much of an infringement (edit: in regards to what weapons may be purchased and the process for purchasing them). I guess a major advantage of the "shall not be infringed" = "zero restrictions" position is that it is a natural Schelling point.
This post was edited by its author on .

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393333

File: 1593693571048.png (64.15 KB, 420x294, UncleJack-off-horse.png)

In regards to
>say "nigger"
There is big difference between using the word "nigger" and mentioning the word.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention_distinction :
>The distinction between use and mention can be illustrated for the word "cheese":
>Use: Cheese is derived from milk.
>Mention: "Cheese" is derived from the Old English word "ċēse".
>The first sentence is a statement about the substance called "cheese": it uses the word "cheese" to refer to that substance. The second is a statement about the word "cheese"

Кiтту!KadyLuvzOQ (ID: 2d64a6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393334

>>393333
>3333
Blue cheese~

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393354

File: 1593713769353.png (478.59 KB, 1024x1024, 576143.png)

>>393333 I'm sure you've heard about cases where people have been fired from their jobs for using mention of the word "nigger" in describing why it's inappropriate to use.

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393369

File: 1593715838878.png (227.84 KB, 353x297, 1510569943683.png)

>>393354
Yes, unfortunately a lot of people are retarded and/or ignorant of basic logic.

Anonymous (ID: 340da4)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393395

File: 1593721964374.png (106.33 KB, 500x391, Not the best place to be.png)

>>392410
>God! Even I can't swallow that much bullshit.

Ah yes, it's all whitey's fault that they don't have anything substantial left to face the tests of time.

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393401

File: 1593722693495.jpg (135.41 KB, 800x1067, 800px-Sankore_Moske_Timboektoe…)

>>393395 There's this:
>
pretty useful in Civ IV

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393403

File: 1593723211285.jpg (245.95 KB, 1400x921, f08b955b25cc3d1fde80514e579b99…)

🦊!smiles.Drs (ID: e20a05)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  393405

File: 1593724308011.png (110.19 KB, 465x666, LH Glancing 5.png)

>>393325
Worldwide.
I think we're expecting 60 Million Monthly Active United States Users come 2021, but I didn't see any numbers for right now.

Anonymous (ID: 340da4)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393407

File: 1593725176690.jpg (107.31 KB, 1300x1306, Stock photo roman soldier laug…)

>>393403

>The Great Mosque of Djenné (French: Grande mosquée de Djenné, Arabic: الجامع الكبير في جينيه‎) is a large banco or adobe building that is considered by many architects to be one of the greatest achievements of the Sudano-Sahelian architectural style. The mosque is located in the city of Djenné, Mali, on the flood plain of the Bani River. The first mosque on the site was built around the 13th century, but the current structure dates from 1907. As well as being the centre of the community of Djenné, it is one of the most famous landmarks in Africa. Along with the "Old Towns of Djenné" it was designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1988.



>it was designated a World Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1988.


>UNESCO


>1988


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO#Director-General

>The walls of the Great Mosque are made of sun-baked earth bricks (called ferey), and sand and earth based mortar, and are coated with a plaster which gives the building its smooth, sculpted look.


>sand and earth based mortar


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/Djenn%C3%A9.jpg/800px-Djenn%C3%A9.jpg

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393427

File: 1593731936599.jpg (90.44 KB, 985x501, kyouko-1400258730572.jpg)

Also, with all this talk about doxxing, let me say: Fuck The New York Times for what they're doing to Slate Star Codex.

Mk17 (ID: dfe7a6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393428

>>393279
>tell me how you think I'm being a hypocrite.
You say doxing is deplorable, an act of terrorism, should be illegal, and has a greater impact on society than murder, but you also say it should be used by "your side" to fight fire with fire.

Listen dude, idc what you do, or what you fight for, and im not trying to stop you, but as this conversation continues you're making less sense to me.
I get these issues are important to you, but we clearly see them in different lights.

Right now, my biggest consern is how to be able to come to this site without feeling obligated to spend an hour+ of my time writing 3 post responses to you haha, but also not offend you, or get you all hot about how im refusing to respond or whatever.
Fact of the matter is i just worked 6 10hour shifts in a row, this has been going on for days and i just want to go back to fun posting without this conversation where every 3 words of a sentence is greentexted and responded to, rather than the whole of an idea. Its daunting, and im not feeling engaged by it anymore after so much time spent circling the same topic, and becoming more of a chore than a fun conversation.

So what do you suggest?

I can respond to all your points posted, then we can do closing statements or something, or we can just sum up our points independently, or you can wait till i have the energy to start up again, but i feel like if it doesn't have a definitive end, and i start posting around the site in other threads of different or similar topics, your going to hold the fact that i lost interest in the conversation over my head for a while, and bring it up for weeks whenever i try to talk about anything else and i would like to avoid that.

Please advise.
This post was edited by its author on .

Mk17 (ID: dfe7a6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393429

>>393405
Ah, you saw that post. I made it this morning, but i didnt want to start a whole other conversation, when the one im in is already starting to get tedious.
Yeah, i could see 60 million. Though, how many are bots, or just phones changing IPs idk, but i wouldn't say its impossible to have around that number of unique users.

So thats like 16-17% of Americans use twitter. What percentage of that do you think are people who use it for politics and news, and gow many just use it to fallow celebrities and stuff. How many are younger than 17 i wonder?
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous (ID: 952cc6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393430

>>393427
I unironically encourage violence against NYT.

Mk17 (ID: dfe7a6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393432

>>393430
The new yankee twerkshop?

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393435

File: 1593735841227.jpg (50.63 KB, 637x630, fluffy-pure-white-lion-head-bu…)

>>393430
>I unironically encourage violence against...
Engaging in offensive violence against non-violent parties won't help and will only make you look bad. At least Boat's idea of fighting doxxing with doxxing makes some sense tactically, whatever one might say about the principles of it.

Mk17 (ID: dfe7a6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393437

>>393435
Im still a fan of Paul Ankas idea.
This post was edited by its author on .

Anonymous (ID: 952cc6)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393443

>>393432
new york times

Mk17 (ID: 1eac8a)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393444

File: 1593739159422.jpg (60.56 KB, 546x596, Norm_abram.jpg)

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393452

File: 1593742313222.png (409.98 KB, 900x810, maud_pie_by_cankeswolf-d7a6553…)

>>393428
>You say doxing is deplorable, an act of terrorism, should be illegal, and has a greater impact on society than murder, but you also say it should be used by "your side" to fight fire with fire.
I said nothing about doxxing in that regard (specifically a wider impact than murder) - but yes, it can be used to "fight fire with fire" as well. You have doxxing conflated with cancel culture. Both are deplorable, and acts of terrorism. Be that as it may, I think nukes are terrible, too, and should ideally never be used, but I support using nukes against those who have used nukes against you, as part of the MAD deterrent. I think killing is bad, too, but killing someone in self defense doesn't make one a hypocrite even if the person doing the killing thinks that killing is bad - and even if the person killing in self defense actively speaks out against killing in general - assuming that self defense is part of the ruleset that they have adhere to and acknowledge when determining if killing is justified. The important thing determining whether one is a hypocrite is whether they have broken their own rules in the application - and not whether they have taken an action that they dislike. As such, I haven't broken my own rules for when I consider either cancel culture, or doxxing, or nukes, to be appropriate - i.e. that thing which would make me a hypocrite - since the rules are not being unevenly applied. As you haven't shown how my ruleset is unevenly applied, or how the ideas that underpin it are contradictory, I would appreciate if you don't imply as such.

>Listen dude, idc what you do, or what you fight for, and im not trying to stop you, but as this conversation continues you're making less sense to me.

>I get these issues are important to you, but we clearly see them in different lights.
That's understandable.

>So what do you suggest?

You're welcome to ignore it if you like. I'm not offended. I've simply been arguing my points, in the same manner in which you might argue to hone your skills in logic. As I mentioned, this was a relatively new solution that I came up with, and this has been a chance for me to test it out. Even though you do not like it, I don't believe you've found any logical holes in it, which is the thing I care most about when it comes to refining the ideas themselves. That's not to say it's 100% fool-proof, but I would say it has stood up well thus far - certainly better than many others that people adhere to and support.

>Please advise.

It's completely up to you.
This post was edited by its author on .

(ID: 5cccf1)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393453

File: 1593743281620.png (158.61 KB, 986x1024, 573567.png)

>>393427 What was the blog about?

Chain!Wall.j2i4Y (ID: 92c5b8)Country code: us, country type: geoip, valid: 1  393458

>>393453
It was a smorgasbord, with a focus on philosophy, rationality, politics, science, and medicine. Luckily all the posts are still archived in various places. Here a few of his top posts:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200531135530/https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
https://web.archive.org/web/20200531152213/https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/
https://web.archive.org/web/20200531181611/https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

P.S. His collected blogposts are also available as a PDF/epub/mobi:
https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/hkbfj4/all_articles_20132020_in_one_ebook_epub_mobi_pdf/
(9503 pages)
This post was edited by its author on .

🦊!smiles.Drs (ID: e20a05)Country code: ponychan.png, country type: customflag, valid: 1  393459

File: 1593746476594.png (2.42 MB, 3038x4495, da1c16237d469ceb08f87fe83f673e…)

>>393429
That's fine, I'm not trying to get into a fight about Twitters numbers.

Also I've said this before, but I'm for limiting the actual reach of these regulations on the internet.
We do this all the time when we pass laws that focus on businesses that employ over a certain amount of workers or are publicly traded on markets like the NYSE or NASDAQ. It would fall well within the realms of current government powers to do the same for massive internet companies that essentially own the modern public forums.

And here's the thing: 60 million Twitter alone (by 2021).... that number is essentially mirrors half of all voters in this nation. Are you going to argue that these companies haven't replaced the parks and sidewalks in terms of being a Public Forum? That's all.


Delete Post [ ]
Edit Post
Posts on this board may be edited for 2 hours after being made.
[ home ] [ site / arch ] [ pony / oat / ef ] [ rp / fan ]