The Next President is...

[Biff_T]

Murder is bad...right?  We are most definitely facing societal decline when murder is tolerated.  People who condone murder should be labeled as terrorists.  

[Boomer6]

I asked what the difference was, specifically. @Lord Ratner somewhat answered, though I disagree that providing information such as someone's home address will lead to a change in public discourse. It will more than likely lead to violence. If you're goal is to reduce ppl freely spouting hate on social media and risk it becoming publicly acceptable speech, maybe the companies allowing this stuff on their platform should be held accountable.

@brabus If nK launches chem/bio weapons at Kunsan/Osan I don't expect us to lose our morals and respond in kind.

If someone is stupid enough to post some disgusting shit with their real name attached, fine, fwd it to their boss. Posting their address, the name of their kids, and where they go to school is not going to shift a window developed by a policy analyst. If someone shows up to your kids school to harass them for being pro-life are you really going to change your views on pro-life? I'd argue most ppl are going to double down on their rhetoric, they're just going to be more discreet about it.

Edited 13 hours ago by Boomer6

[bfargin]

Strongly oppose anything other than public disclosure of what they said out there for public consumption. Families should never be doxed (home info, relatives, etc). Make the owner of the words stand by them, but counter with more accurate and truthful words not violence (unless as someone outlined, self defense). I’m all for defending someone, if the perpetrator is intent on doing physical harm/death, with the use of copious amounts of deadly force.

[Day Man]

I don't agree with killing someone for exercising their first amendment rights. I also don't recall this level of backlash or attention when the Hortmans were assassinated in MN...why the difference? I couldn't find any associated posts here after searching 'hortman' or 'minnesota'

[HeloDude]

56 minutes ago, Day Man said:

I don't agree with killing someone for exercising their first amendment rights. I also don't recall this level of backlash or attention when the Hortmans were assassinated in MN...why the difference? I couldn't find any associated posts here after searching 'hortman' or 'minnesota'

Of course their assassinations were horrible and wrong.  As for not posting about it, I don’t think most people (nationally) even know who those people were, whereas Charlie Kirk was definitely well known.  And if you did an unsuccessful search for their names, why didn’t you post about it when it occurred?

The point is what I don’t recall is a big conservative push to say how it was a good thing those state reps were killed—unless I missed something?

Edited 10 hours ago by HeloDude

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

I asked what the difference was, specifically. @Lord Ratner somewhat answered, though I disagree that providing information such as someone's home address will lead to a change in public discourse. It will more than likely lead to violence. If you're goal is to reduce ppl freely spouting hate on social media and risk it becoming publicly acceptable speech, maybe the companies allowing this stuff on their platform should be held accountable.

@brabus If nK launches chem/bio weapons at Kunsan/Osan I don't expect us to lose our morals and respond in kind.

If someone is stupid enough to post some disgusting shit with their real name attached, fine, fwd it to their boss. Posting their address, the name of their kids, and where they go to school is not going to shift a window developed by a policy analyst. If someone shows up to your kids school to harass them for being pro-life are you really going to change your views on pro-life? I'd argue most ppl are going to double down on their rhetoric, they're just going to be more discreet about it.

I'll explain it.

It's different because people on the right were calling for people to be doxxed for things that literally every sane person in the world agrees with - i.e. murdering people based on their beliefs is something that should not be tolerated. So yeah, let's dox those people in order to shame them and root out what is a sick and anti-social sect of people who for whatever reason seem to be gaining power in our country.

On the other hand, people on the left were using doxxing as a means to impose a measure of social pressure and control on groups of people they would fear would speak out against their latest social fad / cause: all whites are racists, but Blacks cannot be racist; transgenderism is natural, etc, etc. In other words they're using doxxing to avoid having a conversation about what are controversial topics.

In short, the right is using doxxing to preserve society and social norms. The left is using it to undermine society. See the difference? I will say fairly, that using doxxing to target bystanders (i.e. someone's family) is gross no matter what the circumstances. Sins of the father and all...

And I'm not sure what your opinion is on nuclear weapons, but we wouldn't respond in-kind to NK with a bio or chem attack because we don't have those types of weapons anymore. But if NK used bio / chem in an appreciable way (not a couple shells here or there) that was going to turn the tide of battle in their favor, you better believe we'd pull out the nukes.

[brabus]

To foot stomp what Viper said, I didn’t intend for my use of “doxxing” to mean going after family, kids at school, etc. I should have been more clear earlier. What I mean is calling out the individual publicly to employers, neighbors, parents at schools (if said individual works at a school), local FB groups, etc. Screenshots of these POS humans SM posts are going viral on X, with their employers tagged (for example), which has resulted in multiple firings. That’s the kind of thing I want to see a lot more. There must be immediately impactful consequences for that kind of rhetoric, and losing income is one of those consequences.  

Edited 10 hours ago by brabus

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Day Man said:

I don't agree with killing someone for exercising their first amendment rights. I also don't recall this level of backlash or attention when the Hortmans were assassinated in MN...why the difference? I couldn't find any associated posts here after searching 'hortman' or 'minnesota'

1. charlie kirk is nationally known. some state senators not so much.

2. his assassination was captured up close in graphic detail. 

3. this is clearly a political assassination. i don't even know who killed the hortmans. did they ever publish a motive or find the killer? i honestly don't know. kirk's death is a visual symbol of a direct attack on the first amendment. 

 

[Lord Ratner]

11 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

3. this is clearly a political assassination. i don't even know who killed the hortmans. did they ever publish a motive or find the killer? i honestly don't know. kirk's death is a visual symbol of a direct attack on the first amendment. 

The suspect in their killing had a list of pro-abortion figures, so yes, it was definitely political. 

 

I do not recall a single prominent conservative making excuses for or celebrating their murders. 

[Boomer6]

Copy, ridicule of cuck-sauruses in the public commons of social media was your intent. No problem with that.

Viper I'd say the assassin took the nuclear option here because conservatives have been making progress against liberals the last few years, but I get your point.

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

Viper I'd say the assassin took the nuclear option here because conservatives have been making progress against liberals the last few years, but I get your point.

If this ends up being another trans shooter, then I have to disagree. 

 

We've tolerated and enabled the delusions of mentally ill people, both trans-identifying and the homeless, for years. Now we are reaping the bitter rewards of this feel-good bullshit. More people will die.

You can't tell the most unhinged people in your society that anyone who doesn't participate in their fantasy is trying to "unalive" them. Just like you can't tell them that their democracy is dying, or a literal tyranny is being imposed upon the people. These tragically unstable citizens do not have the ability to detect hyperbole. They are taking the political rhetoric literally, and acting in a purely logical fashion if you accept their initial premise. 

If anyone on this forum believed that we truly were close to losing our democracy, we all would have a very different relationship with our personal firearms.

[ClearedHot]

Trump on Fox and Friends just said they have the suspected shooter in custody.

Son of a cop and a social worker....father turned him I after he confessed to him that he did it.