House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others shot at congressional softball practice

[Shaka_Khan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQXYrzX_tKM

[Husar]

Oh golly, I'm sure it was a leftist yoga teacher trying to make a point about gun control.

I wonder whether that one politician still thinks ISIS should be supported after they shot up the Iranian parliament.

There's really no serious point to make it seems, isn't this an everyday incident in the US?

[Greyblades]

South Carolina congressman Jeff Duncan said the suspect had asked him whether Republicans or Democrats were practising before shots rang out. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40275055)

Mr Brooks said the gunman was armed with a rifle and was "blasting away" from behind the dugout, using it for protection. The congressman, who said he took refuge behind a batting cage, described the attacker as a middle-aged white male, "a little on the chubby side"

The last member of Congress to be targeted by a gunman was Democrat Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head as she met constituents in Tucson, Arizona, in January 2011. She survived, but six others died in that incident.

[Greyblades]

Washington post, so might be false.

Shooter identified by law enforcement officials as James T. Hodgkinson (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/public-safety/updates-shooting-at-congressional-baseball-practice-in-virginia/shooter-named-as-james-t-hodgkinson/?utm_term=.d73c52338377)

The shooter at the GOP congressional baseball practice this morning is James T. Hodgkinson of Belleville, Ill., according to law enforcement officials. Hodgkinson, 66, owns a home inspection business, but his home inspection license expired in November 2016 and was not renewed, state records show.

Hodgkinson was charged in April 2006 with battery and aiding damage to a motor vehicle, according to online records in St. Clair County, Ill. The charges were dismissed, records show

Assuming identification is true: the nature of his targets, his question to Jeff Duncan and this entry of his twitter profile indicates an obvious political motivation:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCSizbTUIAELvI8.jpg:large

[Montmorency]

The initial reports were of a gunman wielding a rifle, one doesn't tend to wield a rifle unless they have a political motivation.

[Greyblades]

BBC have confirmed the shooter's identity. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40275055)


The attacker, identified as Illinois native James T Hodgkinson, was taken to hospital and died from his injuries.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Expect more events like this under the current administration.

[Reverend Joe]

Man, you should expect this kind of stuff in general because of the messed up culture the US has been living with for the past thirty or forty years. We've had a weirdo survivalist/revolutionary culture ever since the Reagan years, and as much as I was surprised this guy was a leftist, I really shouldn't have been, because the "it's time for a change, no matter what" mentality has been slowly building for decades now. It's become more noticeable in the past ten or fifteen years because it started showing up more in the media, but stuff like the Turner Diaries and Timothy McVeigh should tell you this attitude has been around a long time.

[Strike For The South]

Tiresome

[a completely inoffensive name]

Man, you should expect this kind of stuff in general because of the messed up culture the US has been living with for the past thirty or forty years. We've had a weirdo survivalist/revolutionary culture ever since the Reagan years, and as much as I was surprised this guy was a leftist, I really shouldn't have been, because the "it's time for a change, no matter what" mentality has been slowly building for decades now. It's become more noticeable in the past ten or fifteen years because it started showing up more in the media, but stuff like the Turner Diaries and Timothy McVeigh should tell you this attitude has been around a long time.

I agree, but I'm making the point that the Obama/Trump years have acted as a catalyst for the transition into a more violent society in general.

[Reverend Joe]

Yeah, it sucks. Like Strike said, tiresome.

[Idaho]

I think the US needs to round up fat white men and interrogate them. Also prevent migration from any country with fat white men. Something must be done about this threat.

[Hooahguy]

Think its kinda ironic that Senator Rand Paul tweeted this (https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/746022114042478592) almost exactly a year ago:


Why do we have a Second Amendment? It's not to shoot deer. It's to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!

So if this guy was trying to stop what he sees as tyrannical, was he justified? When is taking up arms against the government justified? Over the past eight years you had the NRA and such groups claiming that the 2nd Amendment is there to ensure that tyrannical governments are stopped. But the definition of a tyrannical government is very subjective clearly. I would bet that if you asked most NRA members, tyranny is only possible if the other side is in power.

[Vincent Butler]

Think its kinda ironic that Senator Rand Paul tweeted this (https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/746022114042478592) almost exactly a year ago:



So if this guy was trying to stop what he sees as tyrannical, was he justified? When is taking up arms against the government justified? Over the past eight years you had the NRA and such groups claiming that the 2nd Amendment is there to ensure that tyrannical governments are stopped. But the definition of a tyrannical government is very subjective clearly. I would bet that if you asked most NRA members, tyranny is only possible if the other side is in power.

The Declaration of Independence states that if a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, they have the right and duty to throw it off. Considering that Scalise was a member of the party that is trying to cut back on the role of government, this is not a valid defense. Had this happened to any member of the Democrat party I would decry this just as much; murder spurred by hate, which is what this is, is not a valid throwing off of tyranny. The decision of when to throw off a government is a very touchy one, and one that could be debated endlessly, which I will not do.

As far as the NRA and Second Amendment go, yes, that is why the Second Amendment exists, in the words of our founders. It would be any form of government that attempts tyranny, though hopefully it could be headed off at the ballot box. An armed overthrow is and should be the absolute last resort, as it was for our founding fathers. Sir Edmund Burke also saw it coming, and urged reconciliation before it came to the colonies attempting revolution.

Right now, considering that the Republican side is more in line with the system of government our founders established (not enough for my tastes, but certainly better than the last eight years), tyranny would most likely come from the Democrat side, especially when you look at things like the IRS scandal, and also things like Waco and Ruby Ridge in the Clinton administration. I decry tyranny no matter who tries to establish it.

[Strike For The South]

You mean the IRS scandal that both the DOJ and FBI cleared? Ruby Ridge and Waco were made possible by a Reagan administration and a Gingrich congress putting federal law enforcement on steroids in order to fight their drug wars. The tyranny creep is a two street and any real tyranny will have the near total backing of the government.

Rand is a spineless grandstander like his father.

[Vincent Butler]

You mean the IRS scandal that both the DOJ and FBI cleared? Ruby Ridge and Waco were made possible by a Reagan administration and a Gingrich congress putting federal law enforcement on steroids in order to fight their drug wars. The tyranny creep is a two street and any real tyranny will have the near total backing of the government.

Rand is a spineless grandstander like his father.

What do you expect when you ask a corrupt administration to investigate itself? We know that the Clintons are corrupt, and Loretta Lynch is no better, and Barack Obama is in their class as well, though he is used to bullying his way around, till somebody stands up to him that he has no power over. The ATF was operating under orders from the Clinton administration at Waco and Ruby Ridge. They were the ones in power, at the time. It was not the Reagan or Bush administration.

I am not a huge fan of Plato, but he has a good point when he points out that the tyrant must manufacture enemies in order to maintain power, so that the people may forever be requiring a leader. He also said that when he first appears he appears as a protector.

Hate is hate. It does not matter who is perpetrating it. If your hatred leads you to violence, you are wrong. Period, end of story.

[Strike For The South]

What do you expect when you ask a corrupt administration to investigate itself? When did the FBI become a tool of the executive branch?


We know that the Clintons are corrupt, and Loretta Lynch is no better, and Barack Obama is in their class as well, though he is used to bullying his way around, till somebody stands up to him that he has no power over. This is all right wing radio paranoia. The Clintons are no more corrupt than any other lifer politicians. So yea, they are really fucking corrupt, but nothing that is our the ordinary. Loretta Lynch? Are we still talking about Benghazi? I am not sure when Obama bullied anyone. He droned striked the shit out of some people though. I guess thats a kind of high grade bullying


The ATF was operating under orders from the Clinton administration at Waco and Ruby Ridge. They were the ones in power, at the time. It was not the Reagan or Bush administration. The late 80s and early 90s were a time of massive militarization of police that both sides of the aisle participated in. It was also very popular because we were taking on all those drug dealers. Tyranny came with all kinds of thumbs and accolades


I am not a huge fan of Plato, but he has a good point when he points out that the tyrant must manufacture enemies in order to maintain power, so that the people may forever be requiring a leader. He also said that when he first appears he appears as a protector.

I am not a huge fan of irrelevant authoritative appeals. A protector you say? You mean like when an old man with dementia tells the country he is going to get rid of those pesky Mexican rapists? In any case, right wing militias are in no way a manufactured threat. They are well armed and well organized. The whole Bundy debacle reminded us of that. I realize the last decade we have been focused on like the 8 muslims who live in the western hemisphere but there are more insidious threats out there.


Hate is hate. It does not matter who is perpetrating it. If your hatred leads you to violence, you are wrong. Period, end of story.

But your violence would be pure because it would be against tyranny? Your violence would come from a place of righteousness and not hate?

Americans mythologize the revolution to a scary degree. 25% of Americans were forced out of the former colonies and had their property seized. British officials were tortured merely for trying to enforce laws. Enslaved peoples were promised freedom, only to see that promise be reneged on. The country only made it out of the 18th century because it centralized power and had a Cincinnatus turned Caeser as the first executive. Funny how little time Washington had for rebellions when he was top dog.

There may be times were a fight against tyranny is necessary but it will leave us all poorer for it and it will not succeed.

[Vincent Butler]

This is exactly why I rarely visit the backroom, you get drawn into endless arguments where nobody will win. I was addressing a point to clarify exactly why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment and why the shooter was not acting in that accord.


When did the FBI become a tool of the executive branch?

Ummm...Loretta Lynch was put in place by Obama, James Comey as FBI director answers to the President. It is part of the executive branch, charge with enforcing the law.


this is all right wing radio paranoia. The Clintons are no more corrupt than any other lifer politicians.

Well, I would agree about most lifer politicians being corrupt, few more so than my own representative, who I have heard some say is one of the most corrupt, and he is a Republican. However, it is far from being right wing radio paranoia, as most of the talk shows will agree about the corruption. I would say that the Clintons are more corrupt than most.

Obama was a community organizer. He is used to getting his way by thuggery. Look, that is the way Chicago politics works. He got into office in part because he got both his primary and general election challenger's SEALED divorce court records opened, exposing nasty personal details. We can't do anything personally against him, so he had no problems pushing his agenda of expanding the reach of government into our lives, most of the time using executive order.


I am not a huge fan of irrelevant authoritative appeals. A protector you say? You mean like when an old man with dementia tells the country he is going to get rid of those pesky Mexican rapists? In any case, right wing militias are in no way a manufactured threat. They are well armed and well organized. The whole Bundy debacle reminded us of that. I realize the last decade we have been focused on like the 8 muslims who live in the western hemisphere but there are more insidious threats out there.

Actually, the militias are very little threat, I know in my state they were actually disarmed. Anyway, the militia is the whole of the people, that is why we were allowed to be armed. This is from the founders' own words. As far as Plato goes, I was referencing a couple of quotes I agreed with, and was in no way using that as an authoritative appeal, as I said, I don't care for Plato. That is a logical fallacy, to do that.

Incest is a problem in the Mexican communities. Deny it all you want, as I am sure you will, but it is true. Yes, many of them are rapists and murderers and thieves. That happens here with non-Mexicans, but we don't need more. I don't know how many times I have seen a report of somebody of Hispanic heritage who had deported numerous times who finally commits murder or rape or some other heinous crime.

Let's see...Pulse nightclub...San Bernardino...Fort Hood...Naval Shipyards...attack on Pam Geller's art exhibit...WTC '93...WTC '01 (no conspiracy mentions, we know that the attackers were mainly Saudi)...Boston Marathon...Oklahoma beheading...Navy recruiting facility...and these are just ones on American soil. The only thing you can bring up is Bundy? Or do you mean Timothy McVeigh?


But your violence would be pure because it would be against tyranny? Your violence would come from a place of righteousness and not hate?

I specifically said used violence spurred by hate. Throwing off tyranny is an acceptable use of violence. Defending my family against an attacker is acceptable use of violence. Fighting in defense of country is an acceptable use of violence. Nowhere did I say that any kind of violence was unacceptable. There are legitimate reasons. And throwing off tyranny violently is an absolute last resort, when all others attempts have failed.


Americans mythologize the revolution to a scary degree. 25% of Americans were forced out of the former colonies and had their property seized. British officials were tortured merely for trying to enforce laws. Enslaved peoples were promised freedom, only to see that promise be reneged on. The country only made it out of the 18th century because it centralized power and had a Cincinnatus turned Caeser as the first executive. Funny how little time Washington had for rebellions when he was top dog.

I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here. Are you referring to the Tories who left or were forced to leave? As far as the British officials being tortured, that may have happened, but I very seriously doubt more than a couple of times, and no, that would not have been justified, nor was the imprisonment and torture of Americans, nor was their ignoring of America's attempts at reconciliation. Washington as Cincinnatus? I don't understand the comparison, I am not familiar with Cincinattus, but what would Washington be rebelling against after throwing off the British? Of course he would have little time for rebellion, there was no longer a need for it.

I am not against a central government, the Federalist Papers make the case for that very clearly. I am just for a very limited central government, that only acts in the law or principles of the powers granted it in the Constitution. And for the record. I am in no way calling for the overthrow of the US government, not that anybody was saying that, but just to put it in the conversation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Strike you already lost the war when you decided to argue with a man who says that Republicans cannot by definition be tyrannical.

[Strike For The South]

This is exactly why I rarely visit the backroom, you get drawn into endless arguments where nobody will win. I was addressing a point to clarify exactly why the Founders gave us the Second Amendment and why the shooter was not acting in that accord. Well you are wrong. I am addressing that point.


Ummm...Loretta Lynch was put in place by Obama, James Comey as FBI director answers to the President. It is part of the executive branch, charge with enforcing the law.
That would be news to Hoover. In any case, the FBI directors since him have maintained their distance from the executive branch. There is a reason they serve 10 year terms and tend to be pulled from law enforcement. In theory, all these people serve the government and not the executive. Now I will grant that AG relationships have been warmer than others but that does not mean they blindly do the bidding of the president. Trump has found this out very recently.


Well, I would agree about most lifer politicians being corrupt, few more so than my own representative, who I have heard some say is one of the most corrupt, and he is a Republican. However, it is far from being right wing radio paranoia, as most of the talk shows will agree about the corruption. I would say that the Clintons are more corrupt than most.
Everyone starts a foundation. Everyone collects speaking fees. The Clintons are no more corrupt than others with the same amount of power.


Obama was a community organizer. He is used to getting his way by thuggery. Look, that is the way Chicago politics works. He got into office in part because he got both his primary and general election challenger's SEALED divorce court records opened, exposing nasty personal details. We can't do anything personally against him, so he had no problems pushing his agenda of expanding the reach of government into our lives, most of the time using executive order.

If You mention Tony Rezko, I get a bingo. Jack Ryans divorce records were unsealed. Nowhere is there a reputable source saying Obama had anything to do with it. There are a lot of memes and fringe conspiracies implicating him, but those do not exactly pass muster.

The imperial presidency has been a thing long before Obama. Every party out of power has complained about it and every party in power has used it. The power the president now wields is a direct result of Americas nuclear weapons. As long as America has nukes, we will have a strong executive.


Actually, the militias are very little threat, I know in my state they were actually disarmed. Anyway, the militia is the whole of the people, that is why we were allowed to be armed. This is from the founders' own words. As far as Plato goes, I was referencing a couple of quotes I agreed with, and was in no way using that as an authoritative appeal, as I said, I don't care for Plato. That is a logical fallacy, to do that.


Militias exploded after Obama got elected, Imagine that.


Incest is a problem in the Mexican communities. Deny it all you want, as I am sure you will, but it is true.
It is not true at all and is typical slander.


Yes, many of them are rapists and murderers and thieves. That happens here with non-Mexicans, but we don't need more. I don't know how many times I have seen a report of somebody of Hispanic heritage who had deported numerous times who finally commits murder or rape or some other heinous crime.

The number of illegal immigrants who have been convicted of a felony is half that of the general population. Which is all the more amazing considering the fact the drug is in one of its "hot" times.


Let's see...Pulse nightclub...San Bernardino...Fort Hood...Naval Shipyards...attack on Pam Geller's art exhibit...WTC '93...WTC '01 (no conspiracy mentions, we know that the attackers were mainly Saudi)...Boston Marathon...Oklahoma beheading...Navy recruiting facility...and these are just ones on American soil. The only thing you can bring up is Bundy? Or do you mean Timothy McVeigh?
There is a cohesive right wing movement in this country that is seeing its rolls swell with disenfranchised white males. Islamic terrorism is a problem but it is a problem that, at least in our hemisphere, has mostly been contained to those who watched some you tube videos and were self radicalized.



I specifically said used violence spurred by hate. Almost all violence is spurred by hate.


Throwing off tyranny is an acceptable use of violence. That is exactly what this man thought he was doing.


Defending my family against an attacker is acceptable use of violence. Fighting in defense of country is an acceptable use of violence. I agree


Nowhere did I say that any kind of violence was unacceptable. There are legitimate reasons. And throwing off tyranny violently is an absolute last resort, when all others attempts have failed. I mean maybe. But tyranny, more often than not, is in the eye of the beholder.




I am not sure if I understand what you are saying here. Are you referring to the Tories who left or were forced to leave? Neither were compensated. See how rebellions get tricky? Simply following the law can deprive you of everything.


As far as the British officials being tortured, that may have happened, but I very seriously doubt more than a couple of times, and no, that would not have been justified, nor was the imprisonment and torture of Americans, nor was their ignoring of America's attempts at reconciliation.
Do you understand what tarring and feathering is? Riding someone out on a rail? Burning down the Governor of Massachusetts house?


Washington as Cincinnatus? I don't understand the comparison, I am not familiar with Cincinattus, but what would Washington be rebelling against after throwing off the British? Of course he would have little time for rebellion, there was no longer a need for it.

You can not lecture me on what the second amendment means, when you are not aware of the Cincinnatus archtype. This is basic, high school level, cherry tree stuff.

Cincinnatus was a Roman. He was twice granted dictatorship to drive out scary invaders and twice he gave up his executive power. He just went back to his fields. Washington is the "American Cinncinatus". He may have been able to be king but he was all like " Martha basically owns all of Kentucky (allegedly) so I am ok". And, of course, when he gave up the presidency.

I mean there was a need for it. If you were a regular who hasn't been paid by the new government, why is this any different? If the American government is taxing you for your whiskey with no Rep, what has changed? See what I mean with the whole "eye of the beholder" thing?


If you would like to learn more about the Revolution, I can start you in two easily accessible places. Robert Middlekauff wrote a great history of the revolution that is part of the Oxford series. It is a bit dated now but still very much holds its own as a primer. Ron Chernow wrote a fantastic biography of Washington just a few years ago. He may be a journalist but he apparently had access to some new archives? In any event, it is fantastic.

[Vincent Butler]

I am not going to bother with most of the points, but I will address several, and then pull out of the thread. We will get nowhere with it anyway. The stats about Mexicans being criminals are subjective in the fact that you can find sources that back up your points, I can find sources to back up mine. I don't think Scalise's shooter thought he was acting against tyranny.

I can lecture on what the Second Amendment was for one simple reason. I am going with what the ones who wrote it said about it, the Founding Fathers. I figure they are the best ones to explain what it is about. The thread took this turn on a comment about that anyway. What Washington did after the Presidency is irrelevant anyway in regards to what the Second Amendment is about.

The right wing extremist bit is all hype. Violence by conservatives, even hard-core right-wingers, is extremely rare, practically non-existent, and those who do engage in it are very quickly decried by others. I can't say the same about the left, Obama and Clinton and Lynch and the leftists did virtually nothing when the police started getting shot, Marilyn Mosby said that the rioters in Baltimore should be allowed to riot, and all the destructive riots after any police shooting of a black man and after election day show that the hatred and violence in this country is concentrated in the left. Whether or not those police were guilty does not give people the right to riot and destroy property.

[Husar]

The right wing extremist bit is all hype. Violence by conservatives, even hard-core right-wingers, is extremely rare, practically non-existent, and those who do engage in it are very quickly decried by others. I can't say the same about the left, Obama and Clinton and Lynch and the leftists did virtually nothing when the police started getting shot, Marilyn Mosby said that the rioters in Baltimore should be allowed to riot, and all the destructive riots after any police shooting of a black man and after election day show that the hatred and violence in this country is concentrated in the left. Whether or not those police were guilty does not give people the right to riot and destroy property.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

I guess the KKK is left wing organization then and the Iraq war or the seven countries Trump is bombing right now just don't count as right wing violence because foreigners ain't people.
Or one could just say that right wing nuts aren't violent because despite all the whining about the war on christmas, deep inside they know they rule the country and oppress the others, they basically have as much reason to break free as a slave owner.
The rioting after shootings of black people took quite a long time of repetitions when it became clear that noone was doing anything to stop it. If you ignore the peaceful protests, you get the riots after a while. What you're basically asking for is that black people just shut up and take it. You seem angrier about the destruction of property than the killing of black people...

[Hooahguy]

I know the ADL isnt regarded highly around here, but its an interesting article nonetheless (https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016):


Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), domestic extremists of all kinds have killed at least 372 people in the United States. Of those deaths, approximately 74% were at the hands of right-wing extremists, about 24% of the victims were killed by domestic Islamic extremists, and the remainder were killed by left-wing extremists.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It is getting harder to have a conversation with my best friend. All throughout college we would have constructive conversations about politics being from opposite sides of the spectrum.
Last three conversations we have talked about current events he has laid out the following opinions:

1. Emotions are used to manipulate people, so why should I care about empathizing with others who don't have health insurance? I only care about my friends and immediate family, anything else is foolish.
2. I think publicly used businesses should not be able to suppress my right to free speech. (This is in response to an alt-right person kicked out of a movie theater.) Your property rights shouldn't trample my right to free speech.
3. (most recently) I don't think it was right for CNN to doxx someone for expressing their opinion. They have a right to privacy, anyone should be able to express their opinion without having their personal life infringed upon.

I didn't really have a counter point to 1. I disagree, but I am so far not smart enough to put together a cohesive argument on why empathy is a good trait to have.

When I said to him that point 2 leads to a legal slippery slope that if I can't control what someone says on my property, how do I control how it is used? What is to stop people from spoiling movies in the theater and claiming it is their free speech?
He replied back that if gays and blacks have to be served, alt-right people shouldn't be discriminated against. I told him blackness and gayness are arbitrary values to discriminate on. Your political opinion is something you choose to have and is therefore not arbitrary to discriminate on. He said he simply disagrees and wouldn't elaborate.

When I said to him that point 3 is odd because I don't see how you can assert a right to privacy on a public forum (reddit) he said that everyone behaves differently between work, your friends and when you are alone. Posting someones info for sharing an opinion is ruining that person by forcing those worlds together. I understand the benefits of anonymity, but it seems impractical to expect the world to leave you alone when you are re-tweeted by the POTUS.

But, he is still my friend and I hope that I can talk with him some more and understand his position and why the alt-right feel so angry.

[Montmorency]

He replied back that if gays and blacks have to be served, alt-right people shouldn't be discriminated against. I told him blackness and gayness are arbitrary values to discriminate on. Your political opinion is something you choose to have and is therefore not arbitrary to discriminate on. He said he simply disagrees and wouldn't elaborate.

On the other hand, many on the left believe that political orientation should not be a basis for discrimination in, for instance, hiring or employment.

The CNN thing, I have trouble understanding because I'm not clear in general to what extent private individuals can assert their privacy (legally or by tradition) in a relationship with news media, and to what extent these media have broad discretion to name principals as they see fit. "Unnamed sources" are a matter of trust in the sourcing of information and so work on the honor principle, and AFAIK legal restrictions are usually related (in some jurisdictions) to the naming of individuals subject to legal or civil suit. For now my impression of the CNN thing is, like the tennis guy recently, they didn't speak or act inappropriately, but nevertheless gave inelegant or provocative wording.

[Greyblades]

The CNN issue is blackmail; they outright said they "reserves the right" to dox the man if he resumed making political content CNN doesnt like.

A good summary:

https://youtu.be/Pzz4GKvmLJo

[Husar]

I didn't really have a counter point to 1. I disagree, but I am so far not smart enough to put together a cohesive argument on why empathy is a good trait to have.

Because I'd like to tie you up and break your bones in various ways just to study what exactly happens, what it looks like and how I can wiggle my finger around in your flesh. But somehow I have empathy and the fear that if this is how our society works, then the next bigger guy will come and do the same to me. In fact that is probably exactly why societies formed and invented government and so on. To protect the weak. And weakness is relative. Different people need to be protected from or helped with different things. If your friend thinks he has no weakness then he may just be dishonest (to himself) or not know his weakness (yet).

Health insurance is a social contract that has others protect you when you need help and in return you help others when they need help. The whole idea of young people being healthy and not needing it is turned on its head when they break their neck partying or speeding or contract some strange little virus that seems so small and yet eats up half their intestines and either kills them or turns them into a little sad sack of helplessness. The reason your friend doesn't have a deformed body from Polio might just be that people care about one another and put a lot of effort and money into getting everyone vaccinated.

The reason he doesn't get robbed by brigands on the way to school might just be that people with money pay taxes for the police to protect everyone. And the people this protects may provide benefits in return. See Dr. Hawking. Without any health insurance of some sort the man would probably have died long ago or not been able to afford all the technology that allows him to continue his work. In return for society buying him a speech computer and an expensive electric wheelchair, he continues to produce science that could one day benefit everyone, including your friend. Which also shows that the weakness of Dr. Hawking does not take away from his genius in other areas.

I don't know how else to explain it, if someone doesn't get it by this point, they should probably be shredded for the benefit of the collective. Hail Sparta! :dizzy2:

[a completely inoffensive name]

The CNN issue is blackmail; they outright said they "reserves the right" to dox the man if he resumed making political content CNN doesnt like.

A good summary:

https://youtu.be/Pzz4GKvmLJo
Probably not, since CNN and presumably the reporter is based in Georgia the relevant law would be the following: http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-8/article-1/16-8-16

I don't see where CNN meets those criteria. Ill watch your video in full later today.

[Greyblades]

The legal applicability in the state is debateable, the action is not; this is an unambiguous case of the threat of revealing personal information being held to coerce that person into discontinuting perfectly legal actions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The legal applicability in the state is debateable, the action is not; this is an unambiguous case of the threat of revealing personal information being held to coerce that person into discontinuting perfectly legal actions.

No, if you are calling something blackmail it needs to fit the definition of blackmail.

Also its not personal info if it is publicly available

[Greyblades]

Which it is not.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.

In the eyes of everyone with eyes to read thier statement it is blackmail.

This is not a celebrity this is a private citizen and the press do not have the same carte blanche to expose detail, especially when such detail would put the citizen's life and wellbeing in danger. Yet CNN declares they will do so anyway should the man repeat his "ugly behavior".

[a completely inoffensive name]

Which it is not.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html


In the eyes of everyone with eyes to read thier statement it is blackmail.

This is not a celebrity this is a private citizen and the press do not have the same carte blanche to expose detail, especially when such detail would put the citizen's life and wellbeing in danger.

From your own article:

"The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA**holeSolo." Using identifying information that "HanA**holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit."

That's public information. He posted on a public forum and made public his facebook info.

Why are you defending a 40 year old man who talks about killing black people online as if he needs to be protected from media that gave him the courtesy of anonymity precisely because they would ruin his life by revealing that he likes to play KKK online.

Also, celebrities are not different from private citizens. If random paparazzi can legally take pictures of celebrity babies and post them online, then this is no different.

[Greyblades]

From your own article:

"The apology came after CNN's KFile identified the man behind "HanA**holeSolo." Using identifying information that "HanA**holeSolo" posted on Reddit, KFile was able to determine key biographical details, to find the man's name using a Facebook search and ultimately corroborate details he had made available on Reddit."

That's public information. He posted on a public forum and made public his facebook info.They identified him and contacted him, they did not make the information public on who he was and now the information that connected the account to his facebook profile is long gone.

If CNN identifies him now it is a dox.

Why are you defending a 40 year old man who talks about killing black people online as if he needs to be protected from media that gave him the courtesy of anonymity precisely because they would ruin his life by revealing that he likes to play KKK online.
Are you trying to excuse blackmail because the victim expresses opinions you dislike?

Is this what it's come down to? Thought crime?

I dont care if he was a 70 year old who sang "gas the kikes" in tune to the carebear theme song while wearing a gimp costume. This is a national news network intimidating a man into a blatantly scripted apology and threatening him with a dox if he goes back on it.

A man who commited no crime or influcted no injury; save making a funny gif!


Also, celebrities are not different from private citizens. If random paparazzi can legally take pictures of celebrity babies and post them online, then this is no different.
Look up your own laws once in a while:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States

The essence of the law derives from a right to privacy, defined broadly as "the right to be let alone." It usually excludes personal matters or activities which may reasonably be of public interest, like those of celebrities or participants in newsworthy events.

The exposure of a gif maker is not protected under the law for his identity is of no public interest.

[a completely inoffensive name]

They identified him and contacted him, they did not make the information public on who he was and now the information that connected the account to his facebook profile is long gone.

If CNN identifies him now it is a dox.

You are moving the goal post. First it was, "they committed blackmail". Now it is "if they release the information now, then they are in trouble".



Are you trying to excuse blackmail because the victim expresses opinions you dislike?

Is this what it's come down to? Thought crime?

I dont care if he was a 70 year old who sang "gas the kikes" in tune to the carebear theme song while wearing a gimp costume. This is a national news network intimidating a man into a blatantly scripted apology and threatening him with a dox if he goes back on it.

A man who commited no crime or influcted no injury; save making a funny gif!

I am asking why people who identify as alt-right like yourself seem to care so much about the rights of those who wish to trample other people's rights.
At a certain point the alt-right snowflake mentality gets tiring, "I want my free speech, but without consequences!"




Look up your own laws once in a while:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_laws_of_the_United_States


The exposure of a gif maker is not protected under the law for his identity is of no public interest.

It is when POTUS re-tweets it. Any statement endorsed by the POTUS is of public interest.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Freedom of speech does not free you from the consequences of your speech. Our Constitution, as amended, emphatically declares that the federal government will not curtail this right -- and numerous state constitutions emulate this restriction. Our culture has always been tolerant of free speech, particularly in the political realm. We have been equally tolerant of the person critiquing your speech as being full of excrement.

[Greyblades]

This isnt an issue of free speech, this is an issue of anonyminity and the consequences of it's revokation. The man expressed his views under the same condition of anonyminity we all reside under. If this man is publically doxed on national news at best you severely reduce his potential, damage his relations and at worst they get him killed.

And please dont pull some "you're being hysterical" line; this is a highly charged political are upon which violence has allready been enacted, people have been almost killed with the same means for even less heinous "offences" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swatting#Notable_cases).


You are moving the goal post. First it was, "they committed blackmail". Now it is "if they release the information now, then they are in trouble".
I havent moved any goal post, I have merely put a bullet into your ill informed idea that it is public information.

CNN is not publishing "HanA**holeSolo's" name because he is a private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same.

CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change.
The threat of his dox is being held over him to cooerce him to do something he wouldnt otherwise do. This is blackmail.


I am asking why people who identify as alt-right like yourself seem to care so much about the rights of those who wish to trample other people's rights.
At a certain point the alt-right snowflake mentality gets tiring, "I want my free speech, but without consequences!"
"First they came for the alt-right and I didnt speak out-
Because I wasnt an alt-righter."

Spare me your apologistic whataboutery I have little patience for it.


It is when POTUS re-tweets it. Any statement endorsed by the POTUS is of public interest.

It's a shitpost not a political manifesto; The public gains nothing from the identity of the man who superimposed CNN over Vince McMahon's face.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I havent moved any goal post, I have merely put a bullet into your ill informed idea that it is public information.


This is why no one wants to debate you. The mental gymnastics are too much. If it was public at the time CNN looked into his background, which I have already established was public on both Reddit and Facebook then his removal of the information after the fact does not change the status of the info.

You just refuse to accept any pushback on your understanding of a topic. The fact that this man posted all of his info on public forums won't even budge your alt-right talking point that CNN somehow illegally obtained said info.

No point in even going through this line by line. You just repeat yourself with the same statements.

[a completely inoffensive name]

On the other hand, many on the left believe that political orientation should not be a basis for discrimination in, for instance, hiring or employment.


For civil servant positions in government bureaucracy? I agree. For private businesses? Disagree.

[Montmorency]

I don't think Greyblades is worried about the info itself, but the allegation that CNN used the threat of releasing personal information to extract an apology from the person in question.

If that were the case, that would be an ethical breach.

Of course there is no direct evidence that this happened, and depends on a bad faith interpretation of the CNN article.

[Viking]

2. I think publicly used businesses should not be able to suppress my right to free speech. (This is in response to an alt-right person kicked out of a movie theater.) Your property rights shouldn't trample my right to free speech.

[...]

He replied back that if gays and blacks have to be served, alt-right people shouldn't be discriminated against. I told him blackness and gayness are arbitrary values to discriminate on. Your political opinion is something you choose to have and is therefore not arbitrary to discriminate on. He said he simply disagrees and wouldn't elaborate.

You can't necessarily choose what you believe any more than your sexual orientation (or lack thereof), though you can choose (as far as your self-discipline goes) not to express either. At some point in the not-too-distant future, I can only assume that it will be possible to change traits like skin colour through gene therapy, such that you can choose your skin colour (light, dark, blue, orange - whatever).

[Montmorency]

You can't necessarily choose what you believe any more than your sexual orientation (or lack thereof), though you can choose (as far as your self-discipline goes) not to express either. At some point in the not-too-distant future, I can only assume that it will be possible to change traits like skin colour through gene therapy, such that you can choose your skin colour (light, dark, blue, orange - whatever).

You start with the eyes, I guess. A garish full-body coloring would be offensive to younger generations who go in for intricate self-decoration through tattooing.

[Husar]

Which it is not.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/07/04/politics/kfile-reddit-user-trump-tweet/index.html


In the eyes of everyone with eyes to read thier statement it is blackmail.

This is not a celebrity this is a private citizen and the press do not have the same carte blanche to expose detail, especially when such detail would put the citizen's life and wellbeing in danger. Yet CNN declares they will do so anyway should the man repeat his "ugly behavior".

Not every condition is blackmail. If the cashier in the supermarket says you cannot leave with your goods unless you pay for them, they're not threatening you with illegal detention. If the press releasing your name is a relatively normal and legal thing in the US, much like the perp walk, then the press telling you that they would release your name if you continue to be an a-hole is actually just them being nice given that they could have just printed it and not gotten into any trouble either. They only provide an incentive for him to behave himself. And assuming that they could easily find out who he is, so could anyone else most likely.

You could go even further and say what he posted put the lives and wellbeing of many citizens in danger given that he glorified beating up press representatives and incited hatred against semites and "other races" apparently.


Also, celebrities are not different from private citizens. If random paparazzi can legally take pictures of celebrity babies and post them online, then this is no different.

Not necessarily. At least here I think the rules can change depending on what you do etc. For example if I went to a party, took a photo of one girl and published it without her consent, she could sue me. If I took the same photo of the same girl posing with five other girls or her being just one of 30 random people on the photo, it would be different. If I'm not mistaken it is also fdifferent if the person is someone "of public interest" or so. I don't know the exact legalities, but if people make money by being famous, I think their personality rights are a bit reduced in this regard. You still shouldn't stalk them at home, but taking photographs of them in public is probably less protected. I would also assume that the internet makes all of this more complicated as someone's Twitter post can voluntarily or involuntarily make them a "celebrity". :shrug:

[Greyblades]

This is why no one wants to debate you. The mental gymnastics are too much. If it was public at the time CNN looked into his background, which I have already established was public on both Reddit and Facebook then his removal of the information after the fact does not change the status of the info.

You just refuse to accept any pushback on your understanding of a topic. The fact that this man posted all of his info on public forums won't even budge your alt-right talking point that CNN somehow illegally obtained said info.

No point in even going through this line by line. You just repeat yourself with the same statements.

I have never said that the information was collected iillegally and I cannot fathom how you have come to such a wrong headed interpritation of my objections. You are hardly are in the position to accuse me of mental gymnastics.

No he did not post all his info on public forums; he mentioned and alluded to enough information during his conversations for CNN to piece together his real life identity. It would be public info if he had intentionally put that information out on his account details but he did not.

I dont fall back because you dont push, at best you dodge, spin and moralize, seemingly believeing such constitutes a debunking.

Are you sure the actual reason you dont want to debate me isnt because it is you who keeps dying on the wrong hill?


I don't think Greyblades is worried about the info itself, but the allegation that CNN used the threat of releasing personal information to extract an apology from the person in question.

If that were the case, that would be an ethical breach.

Of course there is no direct evidence that this happened, and depends on a bad faith interpretation of the CNN article. As far as I can see an ethical breach is the good faith interpritation; the bad faith interpritation is criminality.


Not every condition is blackmail. If the cashier in the supermarket says you cannot leave with your goods unless you pay for them, they're not threatening you with illegal detention. If the press releasing your name is a relatively normal and legal thing in the US, much like the perp walk, then the press telling you that they would release your name if you continue to be an a-hole is actually just them being nice given that they could have just printed it and not gotten into any trouble either. They only provide an incentive for him to behave himself. And assuming that they could easily find out who he is, so could anyone else most likely.

Incentive to behave himself? If his name and address is broadcast on CNN his life will be ruined if not ended. Harrassment will likely ensue; blacklisting amongst major employers, in this political climate it would likely escalate to threats, stalking and perhaps even outright murder attempts.

The news have a moral and legal obligation not broadcast the name let alone the address of persons who would have thier life and livelyhood threatened by the broadcasting, with the only caveat being those who are on the run.

This man has comitted no crime and CNN is threatening this man with the mob unless he stays prostrate.


You could go even further and say what he posted put the lives and wellbeing of many citizens in danger given that he glorified beating up press representatives and incited hatred against semites and "other races" apparently.

With no real platform or professional obligation it would be hard to establish such a significant effect. It would be hard enough to establish intent as what there remains of his posts (as found on encyclopedia dramatica who recovered of some of his deleted posts from the various archive sites) he did not make any attempts at incitement, merely acted the typical racist troll.

Regardless it is not CNN's place to play judge and jury, it goes far beyond the remit of the press to take such things into it's own hands.

[Husar]

Incentive to behave himself? If his name and address is broadcast on CNN his life will be ruined if not ended. Harrassment will likely ensue; blacklisting amongst major employers, in this political climate it would likely escalate to threats, stalking and perhaps even outright murder attempts.

The news have a moral and legal obligation not broadcast the name let alone the address of persons who would have thier life and livelyhood threatened by the broadcasting, with the only caveat being those who are on the run.

This man has comitted no crime and CNN is threatening this man with the mob unless he stays prostrate.

You're making things up now. They said his name, where is the address coming from?
They're also not threatening him with a mob. If there were to be a mob, then CNN would be as responsible for that as he would be if someone acted on his racist trolling.


With no real platform or professional obligation it would be hard to establish such a significant effect. It would be hard enough to establish intent as what there remains of his posts (as found on encyclopedia dramatica who recovered of some of his deleted posts from the various archive sites) he did not make any attempts at incitement, merely acted the typical racist troll.

Regardless it is not CNN's place to play judge and jury, it goes far beyond the remit of the press to take such things into it's own hands.

No, they have a right to report the truth. Not giving out his true name basically makes it fake news. They should publish the real names and not allow him to hide behind a pseudonym like a coward.
And no, there are no special moral obligations for them, corporations are people in the US.

[Kralizec]

I have never said that the information was collected iillegally and I cannot fathom how you have come to such a wrong headed interpritation of my objections. You are hardly are in the position to accuse me of mental gymnastics.

No he did not post all his info on public forums; he mentioned and alluded to enough information during his conversations for CNN to piece together his real life identity. It would be public info if he had intentionally put that information out on his account details but he did not.

I dont fall back because you dont push, at best you dodge, spin and moralize, seemingly believeing such constitutes a debunking.

I'm actually somewhat in agreement with you. If there was some public interest in revealing the guy's identity, they should have just done so. I may be missing something but it sounds as if they've said to the guy "stop being a dick online, or we're going to expose what you've been doign for everyone to see". Wether that amounts to extortion or blackmail sounds really doubtful though.


I don't understand why the Alt Right gets worked up about it though. Most of them seemed to have no problem with ruining the life of a restaurant owner and his family (see: Pizzagate) in order to have a little fun and score a few political points. What's good for the goose...

[Husar]

Well, apparently BILD just published unedited faces of some of the extreme left rioters from the G20 in Hamburg, with the headline "wanted!". Seems like it was not in cooperation with police, just them basically saying "hey, look for these troublemakers".

http://faktenfinder.tagesschau.de/inland/gzwanzig-147.html

As for CNN, again, it looks like they decided not to publish it since he apologized but also didn't want to close that door forever.
They're not demanding that the guy does anything that he didn't already do anyway. They're saying if he turns around, they'll turn around, too.

See it as a gentlemen's agreement, and if one side breaks it, the other side will not feel bound to it anymore either.

If CNN should be punished for anything, it's auto-playing videos...