Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I didn't know about this attack till about ~30 mins before I made my first post. My mom called me to talk about it because of how terrible it was, and the fact her brother is gay, and she knows I'm not a 1 on the Kinsey scale. Looking back on what I wrote, it was harsh and not really representative of what I believe in.

You could make an argument that I'm not very liberal, even though I believe I am. Either way, an attack made me feel personally connected to it, caused me to drudge up a lot of violent, reactionary thoughts.

I'm still angry. I know I shouldn't blame others for the sins they didn't commit, but its real hard.to not blame an institution for me. Especially an institution like an Abrahamic religion that I've already rejected.

50 men didn't die last night because we stupidly invaded Iraq and killed ~20,000 civilians (estimate I read) They died because a bunch of fething donkey-caves think their God is better than our God. Even though probably most of the guys there didn't believe in either God.

Again, I probably shouldn't be posting as its really hitting me so close, but I'm also pretty high soooo I am. Who else is pumped for Mk. III?

DutchWinsAll wrote:
So I didn't know about this attack till about ~30 mins before I made my first post. My mom called me to talk about it because of how terrible it was, and the fact her brother is gay, and she knows I'm not a 1 on the Kinsey scale. Looking back on what I wrote, it was harsh and not really representative of what I believe in.

You could make an argument that I'm not very liberal, even though I believe I am. Either way, an attack made me feel personally connected to it, caused me to drudge up a lot of violent, reactionary thoughts.

I'm still angry. I know I shouldn't blame others for the sins they didn't commit, but its real hard.to not blame an institution for me. Especially an institution like an Abrahamic religion that I've already rejected.

50 men didn't die last night because we stupidly invaded Iraq and killed ~20,000 civilians (estimate I read) They died because a bunch of fething donkey-caves think their God is better than our God. Even though probably most of the guys there didn't believe in either God.

Again, I probably shouldn't be posting as its really hitting me so close, but I'm also pretty high soooo I am. Who else is pumped for Mk. III?

I'm going to say, you sound like you have a lot on your mind. Maybe an early night would be good? I mean, sleep on it.

 Buzzsaw wrote:


I'm going to say, you sound like you have a lot on your mind. Maybe an early night would be good? I mean, sleep on it.

Solid advice. And I'm taking it. Cheers dakkanauts, sorry if I made anyone upset.

DutchWinsAll wrote:
So I didn't know about this attack till about ~30 mins before I made my first post. My mom called me to talk about it because of how terrible it was, and the fact her brother is gay, and she knows I'm not a 1 on the Kinsey scale. Looking back on what I wrote, it was harsh and not really representative of what I believe in.

You could make an argument that I'm not very liberal, even though I believe I am. Either way, an attack made me feel personally connected to it, caused me to drudge up a lot of violent, reactionary thoughts.

I'm still angry. I know I shouldn't blame others for the sins they didn't commit, but its real hard.to not blame an institution for me. Especially an institution like an Abrahamic religion that I've already rejected.

50 men didn't die last night because we stupidly invaded Iraq and killed ~20,000 civilians (estimate I read) They died because a bunch of fething donkey-caves think their God is better than our God. Even though probably most of the guys there didn't believe in either God.

Again, I probably shouldn't be posting as its really hitting me so close, but I'm also pretty high soooo I am. Who else is pumped for Mk. III?

No fault on your end. Idiots are idiots. They always have been, they always will be. Now we just have more capacity to kill, Twitter, CNN, Facebook, and every other platform to repeat it to us. The good news? Pretty much every decent human being disagrees with the tactics and goals of the idiot. That's a marked distinction from the past. That is progress.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The first is that Reddit (or, in this case, its mods) does not have unfettered ability to simply delete material; the TOS does more then simply grant them rights, it also establishes a code of conduct that is prevents capricious deletion of material that conforms to stated norms.

Apparently they do have that right. And the TOS is not a binding legal contract, if Reddit wants to delete your post you have no legal rights to do anything about it (other than complain, of course).

Second, Reddit is a public company with a business model based around the idea of being a forum; while you may be unimpressed with the severity of their actions, there is a very valid reason to draw attention to such actions. The public is not so sanguine as you might imagine at the notion of a public forum exercising such capricious moderation.

Ah yes, the same old "moderation is bad" complaints that have existed for as long as there have been internet forums. I think you're rather mistaken about the opinion of the public here. Much of the public considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools with very little redeeming value and would not lose much sleep over it if they instantly disappeared.

Third and most importantly, for liberals free speech is a value, not simply a legalistic entitlement, just as censorship extends beyond that which is enforced by government diktat. This is leads to amplifying the last point; the idea that Reddit reserves an unfettered right to delete news about the largest mass casualty attack in the USA since 9/11 is offensive to many people beyond the politically conservative.

And those "liberals" are badly mistaken. Any argument that a private website does not have the right to decide what content they allow is simply not dealing with reality. If you don't like Reddit's policies then you are free to have your discussion of the news elsewhere. But Reddit declining to provide you with a place to have your discussion is not an infringement of your right to free speech.

But to reiterate my above point: this incident is damaging to Reddit as a brand. For hours today the default news board on Reddit had nothing on the biggest terror attack in the US post 9/11!

Now finally we come to a valid point. Reddit's customers may not be happy about this and it may cost them money. But that's certainly a much less impressive claim than all the attempts at portraying this as some kind of moral issue.

I weep for the fact so many died.

This is one of the largest shootings since Virgina Tech massacre....

Such a loss of life....

I am going to lie down now.

Listening to, and reading, Obama's comments today didn't come across at all as an attempt to get more gun control passed.

Honestly, he did sound pissed once again, but it felt more like he was pointing at the tragedy and admitted defeat while stating "if we are okay with all these tragedies because guns are so important, then that is the choice we have made as a nation."

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Let me correct you for a moment, no one considers these mods "liberals", they seem to be firmly ensconced in the regressive, authoritarian left. Like the Social Justice movement (of which it may be sometimes considered a part) this is an illiberal and authoritarian movement.

Well, you have yet to prove that this was any more than an under-staffed sub dealing (poorly) with a massive amount of traffic, brigrading, and hate. I'll be interested to hear your theory.

As for your point about censorship, there are three issues with it. The first is that Reddit (or, in this case, its mods) does not have unfettered ability to simply delete material; the TOS does more then simply grant them rights, it also establishes a code of conduct that is prevents capricious deletion of material that conforms to stated norms. Second, Reddit is a public company with a business model based around the idea of being a forum; while you may be unimpressed with the severity of their actions, there is a very valid reason to draw attention to such actions. The public is not so sanguine as you might imagine at the notion of a public forum exercising such capricious moderation.

Yes, they very much do. They own it, they can do what they like. More to the point, it's not even the admins, it's the mods of a single sub. These are not reddit employees. These are just people who made a subreddit. If they want to decree that only news about badgers can be posted, they can fething do that.

Third and most importantly, for liberals free speech is a value, not simply a legalistic entitlement, just as censorship extends beyond that which is enforced by government diktat. This is leads to amplifying the last point; the idea that Reddit reserves an unfettered right to delete news about the largest mass casualty attack in the USA since 9/11 is offensive to many people beyond the politically conservative.

You have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to an audience. If you want to spout hate, you can do it on your own forum. It's a privately run company, don't like it? Use something different. Also, I will point out, again, that this is not the reddit admins, but the mods of a single sub.

Again, at the risk of being condescending, given that you have endorsed a vastly narrower and more legalistic concept of 'free speech' (certainly then my own), perhaps convincing you is not so very high on the Breitbart priority list? Rather, they are attempting to convey this information to liberals, conservatives and classical liberals that, as Milo Yiannopolis likes to say, believe in sunlight as the best disinfectant.

I'd be interested to see what yours is. Mine it that you are allowed to freely speak and express yourself without being stopped by the government. You have the right to speak, but you can't force people tolerate your speech if they find it repugnant. You can speak, but nobody has to give you the microphone.

And, no, it's not even on Brietbart's priory lists, because it's barley a news source. It has one purpose, to spread mis-information to push an ultra-conservative viewpoint. I think Whembly quite accurately described it "horsecrap"

Also the fact you are holding up fething Yiannopolis as some sort authority would be hilarious if it was so depressing. Methinks you won;t

But to reiterate my above point: this incident is damaging to Reddit as a brand. For hours today the default news board on Reddit had nothing on the biggest terror attack in the US post 9/11!

Well, not really. Most people don't give a gak either way, and these aren't reddit employees. They're just mods of r/news.

Also, no, they had quite a bit, but were dealing with spam and their auto-mod that deletes duplicate threads overcompensating because of that. As addressed int he post you listed if you had stopped to read it.

 d-usa wrote:
Listening to, and reading, Obama's comments today didn't come across at all as an attempt to get more gun control passed.

Honestly, he did sound pissed once again, but it felt more like he was pointing at the tragedy and admitted defeat while stating "if we are okay with all these tragedies because guns are so important, then that is the choice we have made as a nation."

That's how I saw it. He was putting it in our court and saying, you don't like it, deal with it how you see fit. Basically, what a president can say, legally speaking.

I appologize in advance: much of my reply will seem condescending, but given how wrong much of Peregrine's post is, I'm not entirely sure how it could be otherwise.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
The first is that Reddit (or, in this case, its mods) does not have unfettered ability to simply delete material; the TOS does more then simply grant them rights, it also establishes a code of conduct that is prevents capricious deletion of material that conforms to stated norms.

Apparently they do have that right. And the TOS is not a binding legal contract, if Reddit wants to delete your post you have no legal rights to do anything about it (other than complain, of course).

Hmmm... "This agreement is a legal contract between you and us." Now, I'm not... oh, wait, I am an attorney! Yeah, this thing that claims to be a legal contract, it's a legal contract. There is even a choice of venue clause.

 Peregrine wrote:

Second, Reddit is a public company with a business model based around the idea of being a forum; while you may be unimpressed with the severity of their actions, there is a very valid reason to draw attention to such actions. The public is not so sanguine as you might imagine at the notion of a public forum exercising such capricious moderation.

Ah yes, the same old "moderation is bad" complaints that have existed for as long as there have been internet forums. I think you're rather mistaken about the opinion of the public here. Much of the public considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools with very little redeeming value and would not lose much sleep over it if they instantly disappeared.

Putting aside how this is completely unsupported assertion on your part, would it still not be fair to point out that Reddit's target audience is almost certainly not "the public [that] considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools"? I mean, it's not like Reddit had previously suffered a consumer revolt...

 Peregrine wrote:

Third and most importantly, for liberals free speech is a value, not simply a legalistic entitlement, just as censorship extends beyond that which is enforced by government diktat. This is leads to amplifying the last point; the idea that Reddit reserves an unfettered right to delete news about the largest mass casualty attack in the USA since 9/11 is offensive to many people beyond the politically conservative.

And those "liberals" are badly mistaken. Any argument that a private website does not have the right to decide what content they allow is simply not dealing with reality. If you don't like Reddit's policies then you are free to have your discussion of the news elsewhere. But Reddit declining to provide you with a place to have your discussion is not an infringement of your right to free speech.

First, you seem to be incapable of distinguishing from a value held and a legal right... which was kinda my point. Second, while these "liberals" (nice scare quotes) may be old fashioned, I'll admit I rather have a soft spot for people of principle like Prof. Dershowitz. Then again he probably also would not have confused the value of free speech with the constitutional right.

 Peregrine wrote:

But to reiterate my above point: this incident is damaging to Reddit as a brand. For hours today the default news board on Reddit had nothing on the biggest terror attack in the US post 9/11!

Now finally we come to a valid point. Reddit's customers may not be happy about this and it may cost them money. But that's certainly a much less impressive claim than all the attempts at portraying this as some kind of moral issue.

Just to clear, I make the complaint that, among many other problematic elements, Social Justice and the Regressive Left have a disturbingly limited and legalistic understanding of free speech. Your refutation of that as a moral point is... to explicitly disclaim a broad understanding of free speech? This seems.... counterproductive.

But this ties into CS' reply;

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Spoiler:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Let me correct you for a moment, no one considers these mods "liberals", they seem to be firmly ensconced in the regressive, authoritarian left. Like the Social Justice movement (of which it may be sometimes considered a part) this is an illiberal and authoritarian movement.

Well, you have yet to prove that this was any more than an under-staffed sub dealing (poorly) with a massive amount of traffic, brigrading, and hate. I'll be interested to hear your theory.

As for your point about censorship, there are three issues with it. The first is that Reddit (or, in this case, its mods) does not have unfettered ability to simply delete material; the TOS does more then simply grant them rights, it also establishes a code of conduct that is prevents capricious deletion of material that conforms to stated norms. Second, Reddit is a public company with a business model based around the idea of being a forum; while you may be unimpressed with the severity of their actions, there is a very valid reason to draw attention to such actions. The public is not so sanguine as you might imagine at the notion of a public forum exercising such capricious moderation.

Yes, they very much do. They own it, they can do what they like. More to the point, it's not even the admins, it's the mods of a single sub. These are not reddit employees. These are just people who made a subreddit. If they want to decree that only news about badgers can be posted, they can fething do that.

Third and most importantly, for liberals free speech is a value, not simply a legalistic entitlement, just as censorship extends beyond that which is enforced by government diktat. This is leads to amplifying the last point; the idea that Reddit reserves an unfettered right to delete news about the largest mass casualty attack in the USA since 9/11 is offensive to many people beyond the politically conservative.

You have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to an audience. If you want to spout hate, you can do it on your own forum. It's a privately run company, don't like it? Use something different. Also, I will point out, again, that this is not the reddit admins, but the mods of a single sub.

Again, at the risk of being condescending, given that you have endorsed a vastly narrower and more legalistic concept of 'free speech' (certainly then my own), perhaps convincing you is not so very high on the Breitbart priority list? Rather, they are attempting to convey this information to liberals, conservatives and classical liberals that, as Milo Yiannopolis likes to say, believe in sunlight as the best disinfectant.

I'd be interested to see what yours is. Mine it that you are allowed to freely speak and express yourself without being stopped by the government. You have the right to speak, but you can't force people tolerate your speech if they find it repugnant. You can speak, but nobody has to give you the microphone.

And, no, it's not even on Brietbart's priory lists, because it's barley a news source. It has one purpose, to spread mis-information to push an ultra-conservative viewpoint. I think Whembly quite accurately described it "horsecrap"

Also the fact you are holding up fething Yiannopolis as some sort authority would be hilarious if it was so depressing. Methinks you won;t

But to reiterate my above point: this incident is damaging to Reddit as a brand. For hours today the default news board on Reddit had nothing on the biggest terror attack in the US post 9/11!

Well, not really. Most people don't give a gak either way, and these aren't reddit employees. They're just mods of r/news.

Also, no, they had quite a bit, but were dealing with spam and their auto-mod that deletes duplicate threads overcompensating because of that. As addressed int he post you listed if you had stopped to read it.

Most of what I said to Peregrine applies so I'll just go to the big point (it's late); do you guys seriously have no understanding that there is a difference between the value of free speech, of Tolerance, and an American's protections under the First Amendment?

I... I mean, you guys do understand that Voltaire, the variously mangled quotes attributed to him and all the rest of those enlightenment ideals, they weren't creations of the American Constitution, Right? That these values both exist independent of the Constitution and predate it. That, indeed, someone may have a substantially broader appreciation of Tolerance then the strict fence of the Constitution.

Remember, Muslims are the problem here!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Hmmm... "This agreement is a legal contract between you and us." Now, I'm not... oh, wait, I am an attorney! Yeah, this thing that claims to be a legal contract, it's a legal contract. There is even a choice of venue clause.

And look what I found in this "this is a legal contract" page:

Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.

So, wherever this "moderators can't remove stuff they don't like" rule is it isn't in the legal document. If it exists at all it must be in some informal code of conduct, much like the dakka forum rules.

Putting aside how this is completely unsupported assertion on your part, would it still not be fair to point out that Reddit's target audience is almost certainly not "the public [that] considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools"?

Sure, that's Reddit's target audience. But you made a comment about society as a whole disapproving of Reddit's actions. If you want to change that to "some of Reddit's target market may be unhappy with the product they are offered" then that's a much less impressive claim.

First, you seem to be incapable of distinguishing from a value held and a legal right... which was kinda my point.

And I'm also talking about values. Aside from the legal question any position that a private website does not have the right to control what content they publish is a value that is not dealing with reality. If you're being a in my house I am free to kick you out without any value conflicts at all.

Most of what I said to Peregrine applies so I'll just go to the big point (it's late); do you guys seriously have no understanding that there is a difference between the value of free speech, of Tolerance, and an American's protections under the First Amendment?

Of course I do. You just don't seem to understand the concept of private property rights involved here. Reddit is not a public space. It is a private website owned by a corporation. It has no obligation to allow unrestricted discussion, and it is not reasonable to expect it to. And this is where the confusion comes from: you've decided that Reddit is something that it isn't, and you act like it's some kind of assault on your values when Reddit doesn't act according to your expectations.

You would have a point about your "free speech as a value goes beyond US law" idea if there was some kind of suppression of speech going on, but that's not the case here. Nobody is hacking an unpopular website to bring it down and silence the views it publishes. Nobody is stealing unpopular books off the shelf and destroying them so that nobody can read those unpopular ideas. A private website is simply saying "we don't want to publish this". There are still plenty of places for you to speak and publish whatever things Reddit will not allow. In fact, given that this seems to be a problem with subreddit moderators rather than Reddit policy as a whole, you can even speak ON REDDIT if you want. You might not get as much of an audience as if you published your thoughts elsewhere, but your freedom to speak is not being denied just because nobody wants to listen to you.

Seeing as reddit is now deleting comments with links on how to donate blood, I think its a good time to say talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. But please, post more pics of nice people of a certain Abrahamic religious faith. That ought to fix perception being reality... double plus good.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Seeing as reddit is now deleting comments with links on how to donate blood, I think its a good time to say talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

I guess you missed the part where the comments were deleted accidentally in the middle of troll problems? Are we really going to make a big deal out of volunteer moderators on a high-traffic site failing to be perfect at moderation?

But please, post more pics of nice people of a certain Abrahamic religious faith. That ought to fix perception being reality...

Let me guess, "no true Muslim"...

 Peregrine wrote:
Remember, Muslims are the problem here!

Oskar Schindler was a Nazi, and he did a lot of good. Clearly we can't judge those who follow National Socialism as bad people in light of this counter-example.

Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Remember, Muslims are the problem here!

Oskar Schindler was a Nazi, and he did a lot of good. Clearly we can't judge those who follow National Socialism as bad people in light of this counter-example.

What does a fascist dictatorship(Nazi!) and a religion have to do with each other?

Nothing guys, the answer is nothing!

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Remember, Muslims are the problem here!

Oskar Schindler was a Nazi, and he did a lot of good. Clearly we can't judge those who follow National Socialism as bad people in light of this counter-example.

What does a fascist dictatorship(Nazi!) and a religion have to do with each other?

Nothing guys, the answer is nothing!

A better question is what a political party and a religion have to do with each other.

The answer is that it's your choice to join and adhere to their ideology. Thus, as long as we can point to a few good apples in a bad bunch, we can't ever judge.

Seaward wrote:
Oskar Schindler was a Nazi, and he did a lot of good. Clearly we can't judge those who follow National Socialism as bad people in light of this counter-example.

You know, that's a good point. It really isn't fair to excuse the actions of the vast majority of a group just because you can find a small handful of examples of good people in the group who didn't go along with all the bad stuff. We should assume that everyone in the group is guilty until we have documented counter-examples of at least 51% of the group acting on the side of good. And mere apathy towards the subject is not sufficient, we must have evidence of them actively expressing support for the good side.

Of course I expect you to apply this rule consistently and never dispute the idea that Christians are all gay-hating bigots by posting examples of Christians who support gay rights. But that shouldn't be very hard, since it is after all a very good rule.

 Peregrine wrote:
You know, that's a good point. It really isn't fair to excuse the actions of the vast majority of a group just because you can find a small handful of examples of good people in the group who didn't go along with all the bad stuff. We should assume that everyone in the group is guilty until we have documented counter-examples of at least 51% of the group acting on the side of good. And mere apathy towards the subject is not sufficient, we must have evidence of them actively expressing support for the good side.

Of course I expect you to apply this rule consistently and never dispute the idea that Christians are all gay-hating bigots by posting examples of Christians who support gay rights. But that shouldn't be very hard, since it is after all a very good rule.

I'm perfectly happy to denigrate - or, to use the progressive phrase du jour, "call out" - Christians for bs behavior.

So are the people working double shifts on the Islam apologia these days, because hypocrisy's all the rage with that set.

 Peregrine wrote:

Spoiler:

...

 Buzzsaw wrote:
Hmmm... "This agreement is a legal contract between you and us." Now, I'm not... oh, wait, I am an attorney! Yeah, this thing that claims to be a legal contract, it's a legal contract. There is even a choice of venue clause.

And look what I found in this "this is a legal contract" page:

Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.

So, wherever this "moderators can't remove stuff they don't like" rule is it isn't in the legal document. If it exists at all it must be in some informal code of conduct, much like the dakka forum rules.

Putting aside how this is completely unsupported assertion on your part, would it still not be fair to point out that Reddit's target audience is almost certainly not "the public [that] considers internet forums and comment sections to be cesspools"?

Sure, that's Reddit's target audience. But you made a comment about society as a whole disapproving of Reddit's actions. If you want to change that to "some of Reddit's target market may be unhappy with the product they are offered" then that's a much less impressive claim.

First, you seem to be incapable of distinguishing from a value held and a legal right... which was kinda my point.

And I'm also talking about values. Aside from the legal question any position that a private website does not have the right to control what content they publish is a value that is not dealing with reality. If you're being a in my house I am free to kick you out without any value conflicts at all.

Most of what I said to Peregrine applies so I'll just go to the big point (it's late); do you guys seriously have no understanding that there is a difference between the value of free speech, of Tolerance, and an American's protections under the First Amendment?

Of course I do. You just don't seem to understand the concept of private property rights involved here. Reddit is not a public space. It is a private website owned by a corporation. It has no obligation to allow unrestricted discussion, and it is not reasonable to expect it to. And this is where the confusion comes from: you've decided that Reddit is something that it isn't, and you act like it's some kind of assault on your values when Reddit doesn't act according to your expectations.

You would have a point about your "free speech as a value goes beyond US law" idea if there was some kind of suppression of speech going on, but that's not the case here. Nobody is hacking an unpopular website to bring it down and silence the views it publishes. Nobody is stealing unpopular books off the shelf and destroying them so that nobody can read those unpopular ideas. A private website is simply saying "we don't want to publish this". There are still plenty of places for you to speak and publish whatever things Reddit will not allow. In fact, given that this seems to be a problem with subreddit moderators rather than Reddit policy as a whole, you can even speak ON REDDIT if you want. You might not get as much of an audience as if you published your thoughts elsewhere, but your freedom to speak is not being denied just because nobody wants to listen to you.

Hmm, I think this is probably my last response to you, as it seems almost unfailing that whenever talking about any topic in the vague vicinity of Social Justice your replies are either intellectually dishonest, manage misconstrue my points or simply factually wrong. Putting aside the goal post moving and other quibbles, the above post is a fine example of this: you made a very specific claim, on which rested the entirety of your other points, that "the TOS is not a binding legal contract, if Reddit wants to delete your post you have no legal rights to do anything about it".

This isn't a little wrong, but rather completely wrong, as I pointed out. Because this one point was wrong, every other point in your analysis is wrong. Even the quote you supplied undermines your argument; "Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.." Having signed a formal, legal agreement there is a contractual relationship between Reddit and its users, not the relationship between a homeowner and an invitee.

Now, while that difference is important and undermines the rest of your points, the thing is... you're kinda creeping me out. In all our back and forth discussions, the closest you've ever come to expressing an understanding of tolerance as a virtue or a moral responsibility is... "Of course I do", followed by two paragraphs demonstrating that, in fact, you do not. So I'm going to leave you be; you've cemented some suspicions I've had about social justice and its adherents, but mostly you've convinced me that whatever star guides your moral compass, it's not the North mine points to.

So have a good week.

Seaward wrote:
I'm perfectly happy to denigrate - or, to use the progressive phrase du jour, "call out" - Christians for bs behavior.

And I'm happy to call out Muslims for their behavior. The point of the picture was not that all Muslims are wonderful people who do nothing wrong, it was a statement against the people arguing things like "we need to keep Muslim immigrants out". Because, aside from whether or not a ban on people of a particular religion is even possible, that means applying the same rules to Muslims who support gay rights and are not a threat. Calling for a blanket ban on Muslim immigrants makes no more sense than calling for a blanket ban on Christian immigrants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:
This isn't a little wrong, but rather completely wrong, as I pointed out. Because this one point was wrong, every other point in your analysis is wrong. Even the quote you supplied undermines your argument; "Subreddits may create their own rules and enforce them as they see fit, providing they do not violate the terms of this agreement.." Having signed a formal, legal agreement there is a contractual relationship between Reddit and its users, not the relationship between a homeowner and an invitee.

No, it isn't wrong at all. You cited a rule which does not exist in the TOS you linked to. The fact that you were able to find some unrelated document that does function as a legal contract has nothing to do with the fact that whatever "moderators can not delete posts just because they feel like it" policy you seem to think exists does not exist in a legally-binding contract. Perhaps it is found in some "good practices for running a popular subreddit" document somewhere, but that is not the same as a legally-binding contract.

In all our back and forth discussions, the closest you've ever come to expressing an understanding of tolerance as a virtue or a moral responsibility is... "Of course I do", followed by two paragraphs demonstrating that, in fact, you do not.

Only because you have a bizarre definition of "tolerance" that seems to consist of "being able to do or say whatever you want without being criticized" and "if I want to say something people are obligated to listen and help me publish my views". This is, needless to say, not the conventional definition of the word.

whatever star guides your moral compass, it's not the North mine points to.

Finally you found something to say that is indisputably true...

The names, and some faces and lives, of those killed, are starting to be shared:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephaniemcneal/orlando-shooting-victims

Damn, some of them were young.

From a personal report I read apparently investigators have been collecting the phones of the deceased, as alot of them were going off....

And they had to answer them....

Oh my god that must be the worst feeling in the world. Hearing all these phones go off... on the deceased bodies.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/florida-nightclub-massacre-deadliest-mass-shooting-u-s-history-n590476

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/orlando-massacre-terrorism-hate-crime-collide-n590646

this kind of broke me:

Mina Justice was sound asleep when she received the first text from her son, Eddie Justice, who was in the gay nightclub when a gunman opened fire and slaughtered 50 and wounded more than 50 others. Here is the conversation she had over text message with her 30-year-old son.

"Mommy I love you," the first message said. It was 2:06 a.m.

"In club they shooting."

Mina Justice tried calling her 30-year-old son. No answer.

Alarmed and half awake, she tapped out a response.

"U ok"

At 2:07 a.m., he wrote: "Trapp in bathroom."

Justice asked what club, and he responded: "Pulse. Downtown. Call police."

Then at 2:08: "I'm gonna die."

Now wide awake, Justice dialed 911.

She sent a flurry of texts over the next several minutes.

"I'm calling them now.

U still in there

Answer our damn phone

Call them

Call me."

The 911 dispatcher wanted her to stay on the line. She wondered what kind of danger her son was in. He was normally a homebody who liked to eat and work out. He liked to make everyone laugh. He worked as an accountant and lived in a condo in downtown Orlando.

"Lives in a sky house, like the Jeffersons," she would say. "He lives rich."

She knew he was gay and at a club — and all the complications that might entail. Fear surged through her as she waited for his next message.

At 2:39 a.m., he responded:

"Call them mommy

Now."

He wrote that he was in the bathroom.

"He's coming

I'm gonna die."

Justice asked her son if anyone was hurt and which bathroom he was in.

"Lots. Yes," he responded at 2:42 a.m.

When he didn't text back, she sent several more messages. Was he with police?

"Text me please," she wrote.

"No," he wrote four minutes later. "Still here in bathroom. He has us. They need to come get us."

At 2:49 a.m., she told him the police were there and to let her know when he saw them.

"Hurry," he wrote. "He's in the bathroom with us."

She asked, "Is the man in the bathroom wit u?"

At 2:50 a.m.: "He's a terror."

Then, a final text from her son a minute later: "Yes."

Orlando authorities confirmed late Sunday that Eddie Justice was among the dead.

Just reading much the same now.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/13/hes-coming-im-gonna-die-sons-text-to-mother-reveals-orlando-shooting-terror

I can't begin to imagine being that scared.
Feth.

It also gives a very small window into the fears a parent goes through.

 Ouze wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The type of operating system or action is irrelevant. Charles Whitman did plenty of damage with a bolt-action rifle.

I only know this because I literally almost posted this exact example earlier in the thread, but he actually used a M1 carbine mostly, in addition to a rifle and shotgun. Up until a couple of hours ago, I also thought it was solely a bolt action

Whitman used a Sears 12 gauge autoloading shotgun (illegally cut down below legal barrel/overall length) to "secure" the top floor leading to the observation deck of the clock tower. He opened fire on the Gabour and Lamport families, who spotted Whitman after taking in the view topside, after he brutally knocked Edna Townsley unconscious (the volunteer working the desk at the entrance to the observation deck). His barrage killed Marguerite Lamport and Mark Gabour, and wounded Mike and Mary Gabour. He finished off Townsley with the shotgun before heading out and barricading himself outside. Most of his victims were killed and wounded at the beginning of his spree, and were carried out with his 6mm Model 700 Remington bolt-action hunting rifle with a Redfield 4x scope.


When the rate of return fire got too heavy (on and off duty police, college students, and citizens with their personal rifles), he started firing randomly with a pump action .35 Remington Model 141 rifle and M1 Carbine. But he failed to hit anybody at those ranges. He also used the M1 when Houston McCoy, Ramiro Martinez, and Allen Crum cornered Whitman, but nobody was killed but Whitman himself by revolver and shotgun fire. The Smith and Wesson Model 19 revolver, P08 Luger, and Galesi-Brescia .25 ACP pistols were not used.

So, yeah. You're absolutely correct that he used more than just the Model 700. But that was what he did the most damage with (other than the shotgun).

Huh, you know lots about this. Any dea how we can put some sort of curb on it, or to you just want to spank to the fact you know lots about guns. Hooray? What exactly does your post do?

We were very nearly on topic for all of three posts there, have to be careful.

http://gawker.com/reports-orlando-blood-center-lifts-ban-on-blood-donati-1781837902

According to reports on social media and a city official speaking on MSNBC, OneBlood, a local blood center in Orlando, temporarily lifted the ban on sexually-active gay men donating blood following the deadliest mass shooting in United States history. Those reports are false.

On one hand it's awful, on the other, temporarily lifting that ban would have caused so much fall-out.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Any dea how we can put some sort of curb on it...

There is a clear chain of consequence from the shooter beating his (now ex-)wife, to being found guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence, to being banned from purchasing or owning any firearm, to not being able to commit this shooting. As we learn more about the shooter's history, we will know where this chain broke.

Whenever a American hurts themselves from slipping on a banana skin, ISIS claim responsibility for it, so those scumbags can off!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Listening to, and reading, Obama's comments today didn't come across at all as an attempt to get more gun control passed.

Honestly, he did sound pissed once again, but it felt more like he was pointing at the tragedy and admitted defeat while stating "if we are okay with all these tragedies because guns are so important, then that is the choice we have made as a nation."

I got that impression as well. I read a grim stat that said this is the 13th time that Obama has had to address the nation following a gun massacre.

Obama struck me as a man going through the motions, with a simmering anger for doing so, because he's done this that many times.

The shooter allegedly called police before the shooting, and claimed allegiance with ISIS.

His father apparently said that his son was wrong to attack the club because "God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality", so I guess it's a complete mystery where he might have picked up his radical ideas.

 Smacks wrote:
The shooter allegedly called police before the shooting, and claimed allegiance with ISIS.

His father apparently said that his son was wrong to attack the club because "God himself will punish those involved in homosexuality", so I guess it's a complete mystery where he might have picked up his radical ideas.

As pointed out earlier, it's a massive difference between pledging allegiance to ISIS and ISIS being directly responsible for the attack.

As for the father, and I could be wrong on this, I think he's been misquoted. I'm pretty sure he said that it's for God to judge these things, not God will punish them, will is a big difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just been reading that the Governor of Texas has been quoting the bible in reference to this tragedy, and the quote has nothing to do with peace, love, or forgiveness...