Elon Bought Twitter- X GON GIVE IT TO YA

[Potato]

Using the term stochastic terrorism in any other manner than sarcastic is pretty fucking distinguished mentally-challenged

[Madrun Badrun]

The concern is not about ownership, it's the concern of content getting worse under a new owner.  Your point about just logging off being a solution to that and not doing so being hypocritical was dumb enough to warrant the sarcasm.   To look at the way social media has compounded social issues over the last decade and then to write off any concern over that as moral panic just because you have seen a few Tweets of people saying the sky is falling because Musk bought Twitter is disingenuous from the start.

So explain to me how the pixels of social media are capable of transforming young men into mass murderers yet the pixels of Grand Theft Auto aren't?

Because the pixels are not the same pixels?  Just because people once said that video games cause violence does not mean saying another thing causes violence isn't true?  Like you can just look for yourself and go history shows video games don't cause violence but hate speech does.  Explain to me how you are so dumb that you think that just because arguments against two things take the same surface form that just because one is false the other thing must also be false?  Aren't you the user that got his panties in a twist when I stayed the Epoch Times isn't a valid news source?  Think that might explain things. 

[Kurt Russell]

  Like you can just look for yourself and go history shows video games don't cause violence but hate speech does. 

Absolute bollocks. Correlation is not causation.

• Where was the social media during Columbine?
• What spicey alt right page sent Ted Bundy over the edge?
• What terrorist videos was Stalin watching to get him the mood for a little genocide?
• ...and pedophiles would still exist even if the Shostacord didn't.

I thought you were more intelligent than this.

[Madrun Badrun]

All you have pointed out is that social media is not the sole cause of violence? That is not a proof that it does not contributing factor.  Also, those are a wild set of examples to pull from.  Social media does no harm because Stalin and Buddy lived before social media.  Explain that! 

[Uncle]

All you have pointed out is that social media is not the sole cause of violence? That is not a proof that it does not contributing factor.  Also, those are a wild set of examples to pull from.  Social media does no harm because Stalin and Buddy lived before social media.  Explain that!

exactly, those aren't the only examples, some young men have explicitly linked their own violent acts to the way women have chosen to dress in modern society and yet we refuse to do anything about that in the name of "muh freedums"

we will not be safe until all contributing factors have been mitigated, and there is no point at which we should relax and say "eh, probably good enough, the rest is just unsolvable human nature"

words have consequences.  people do not kill people.  opinions do.

[james]

Free speech going well

https://mobile.twitter.com/PatchAdams03/status/1598676677831413763

[Madrun Badrun]

We refuse to do anything when men act violently based on how women dress?  What?  Are you arguing (or saying that I am arguing) that dictating women to dress modestly is the same as hate dictating speech against women because both *might* have the desired effect of mitigating violence against women?  On the speech analogy that is like saying we shouldn't let gays on the forum because it riles up the Himus which is clearly a different response than saying Himu should be banned.  I do not see how you managed to flip the victim and perpetrator around there and think they are equivalent based on possible outcomes or thinking that what I am arguing for is just about outcomes.  Its another silly conflation.  We do actively suppress such men and society is better for it.  Incel behaviour is pretty identifiable and when those subreddits were banned it didn't lead to banning all speech.   Then you just jump to an extreme that if we mitigate one factor all such factors need to be also mitigated, which will inevitably lead to some scary future.  And imply responsibility has to be a zero-sum thing to boot. 

[Uncle]

On the speech analogy that is like saying we shouldn't let gays on the forum because it riles up the Himus which is clearly a different response than saying Himu should be banned.

   banning the people who actively commit acts of violence

  banning the people who don't advocate for violence, but seem to rile up those who might

[Madrun Badrun]

Cool reply man.  Let's not focus on your perplexing women analogy. 

[Uncle]

Cool reply man.  Let's not focus on your perplexing women analogy.

that's what the post was about? people whose comments or choices provide motivation for others to act badly

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

Elon posting all of Hunter’s dick pics in 10!

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598778884639653891

[Madrun Badrun]

Ah, I see, so the women are the bigots in the analogy.  And because we don't dictate how women dress, we also can not dictate bigotry.  This makes a lot of sense, because, again, if we don't do one set of actions in one situation, it means that we can't do another set of actions in a different situation where those situations are connected on the tenuous analogy that a women dressing a certain way is the same as someone engaging in hate speech.       

[Nintex]

For me the bigger social media problem is the radicalization of boomers on Facebook as opposed to the blue check shitlibs, weeb nazi's, joe rogan groupies, grifters and tankies duking it out on Twitter with the pepe's and shit posters egging them on.
On Twitter it takes a lot of effort to get any traction and everything is public. On Facebook your racist uncle can be village chief in the members only local Facebook group spreading terrible memes and no one will know about it.

Also I must be following the wrong accounts because outside of Kanye's midlife crisis I'm not seeing much of this extreme right or Nazi content even after Elon's "pardon".
From what I'm seeing most of the alt right is still focused on the trad wife breeder dream as well as pop culture like Disney being too woke or Square Enix censoring manga's or whatever has their panties in a bunch this week.
They're pretty much recycling the same content^TM except for Crypto because it's in the dumps. So that space has basically turned into finance bro's with actual cash making fun of all the poor kids who bet their life savings on some shit coins.

[Nintex]

Elon posting all of Hunter’s dick pics in 10!

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598778884639653891

Live Q&A too

[james]

Sorry Nintex, delayed past your bed time

[Nintex]

It's the weekend 

[Uncle]

Ah, I see, so the women are the bigots in the analogy.  And because we don't dictate how women dress, we also can not dictate bigotry.  This makes a lot of sense, because, again, if we don't do one set of actions in one situation, it means that we can't do another set of actions in a different situation where those situations are connected on the tenuous analogy that a women dressing a certain way is the same as someone engaging in hate speech.       

so likewise you would argue that, as one example, simply pointing out the fact that a hospital provides gender-affirming care is neither hate speech nor stochastic terrorism, in fact under many circumstances it could be considered helpful information for those who are seeking such care

the hate speech is the people who take unprompted action when they see that and call the hospital and yell at the staff there

[james]

Musk at 4:59pm on a Friday

"Yeah, Imma gonna need you to stay in just a liiiiitttle bit late tonight"

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1598820834965131265

[Madrun Badrun]

K again, you are just both-sidings the issue and trying to pretend no one can differentiate between people calling for bigotry to be shut down and bigots calling for gender-affirming care to be shut down.  Just because, on abstraction, two groups of people are calling for two things to be shut down does not make them the same nor is it very hard to see the difference between the two unless you are stupid enough to twist yourself into dumb analogies.       

[Uncle]

K again, you are just both-sidings the issue and trying to pretend no one can differentiate between people calling for bigotry to be shut down and bigots calling for gender-affirming care to be shut down.  Just because, on abstraction, two groups of people are calling for two things to be shut down does not make them the same nor is it very hard to see the difference between the two unless you are stupid enough to twist yourself into dumb analogies.     

no no, not specifically calling for it to be shut down, simply point out the fact that a hospital offers it (which is what libsoftiktok does)

example of matter-of-fact statement of what is included in the attached video:

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1558669742126223361

is stating a fact hate speech?

[Skullfuckers Anonymous]

He gave the files to Matt Taibbi

 

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394

[benjipwns]

Yep, for instance did you know that no real people died because of covid disinformation?

I bet there were 50 people in Christchurch who severely regret not logging off of 4chan in order to protect themselves from being shot, but they just couldn't admit to being addicted to it.  Probably looking at cartoon frogs just before bullets started flying.   

What exactly are you two advocating for here?

Twitter had moderation before COVID and Christchurch, did after both those things and Musk has not said he will eliminate moderation and has even suggested things will be stricter than the Brandenburg standard despite previously suggesting all legal content will be allowed. 4chan and YouTube, two of the three websites Brenton Tarrant told police he used for inspiration, have and had moderation. Twitch and Facebook, two other websites with live streamed violence including mass shootings, have and had moderation. The only "large" website, 8chan, that refused to moderate (except people who made fun of its owners obviously) has all but been driven off the surface web specifically because it refuses to moderate illegal content such as child pornography.

There are bucketfuls of bodies piling up from the terrorism yet you seem to also want the perpetrators of these acts (people like yourself who have, perhaps semi-anonymously, posted legal content online) to avoid prison for what they've done. Do you want to change US and EU law to create a duty to moderate specific legal content, something that would violate current US and EU law and outlaw Twitter, Facebook, etc.?

As an aside, New Zealand did not criminalize any speech which "inspired" Tarrant, it criminalized the video and his specific speech/manifesto/whatever and attempted to use the police to hunt down citizens who posted on any website that featured it.

[Nintex]

And Taibbi is releasing it Tweet by tweet. 

[Madrun Badrun]

And again, it is easy to determine hates speech and harassment.  It is not some nebulous thing.  Using the exact same words can mean different things depending on the context.  This is basic linguistics.   

[benjipwns]

And Taibbi is releasing it Tweet by tweet. 

This was always the risk of giving it to someone like Taibbi.

[Nintex]

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598827602403160064

Handle it jack

[Madrun Badrun]

Yep, for instance did you know that no real people died because of covid disinformation?

I bet there were 50 people in Christchurch who severely regret not logging off of 4chan in order to protect themselves from being shot, but they just couldn't admit to being addicted to it.  Probably looking at cartoon frogs just before bullets started flying.   

What exactly are you two advocating for here?

Twitter had moderation before COVID and Christchurch, did after both those things and Musk has not said he will eliminate moderation and has even suggested things will be stricter than the Brandenburg standard despite previously suggesting all legal content will be allowed. 4chan and YouTube, two of the three websites Brenton Tarrant told police he used for inspiration, have and had moderation. Twitch and Facebook, two other websites with live streamed violence including mass shootings, have and had moderation. The only "large" website, 8chan, that refused to moderate (except people who made fun of its owners obviously) has all but been driven off the surface web specifically because it refuses to moderate illegal content such as child pornography.

There are bucketfuls of bodies piling up from the terrorism yet you seem not to want the perpetrators of these acts (people like yourself, who may semi-anonymously, who have posted legal content online) to avoid prison for what they've done. Do you want to change US and EU law to create a duty to moderate specific legal content, something that would violate current US and EU law and outlaw Twitter, Facebook, etc.?

1) We don't need take Musks word as valid and there is a decent history saying that doing so is a bad idea
2) Just because there was moderation that did not work does not mean that less moderation is better or won't worsen the situation.  The opposite is what is being argued.  With Musk's take over the concern was that there would be less moderation, thus making a bad situation worse.  So unless we take his word that things will be sticker, which is kind of obviously not true given his amnesty, to the point where I don't even know why you included that bit, that concern stands.
3) There is a gulf between having people arrested and being a proponent of banning people on Twitter, obviously.  Common I know your not uncle dumb, why are you arguing the same way with slightly more articulation?  Do you think it is a fair characterization that people concerned about hate speech and violence necessarily need to be advocating for people to be arrested?  Why does wanting to prevent hate speech through social media moderation necessitate also advocating for people to be arrested?  Like its the same fucking argument, any limit of free speech leads to horrible situations, therefore we can't limit free speech.  But how you get from banning people on Twitter to arrests and changes in laws is absurd, unless you are purposefully trying to make one position sound absurd?  You wouldn't be doing that Benji, would you? 

[benjipwns]

So all you're arguing is that you personally think Twitter should have stricter moderation and that this is just a good idea you would suggest? If that's the case then I apologize for lumping you with Occam.

[Uncle]

And again, it is easy to determine hates speech and harassment.  It is not some nebulous thing.  Using the exact same words can mean different things depending on the context.  This is basic linguistics.

stating a fact without even editorializing is hate speech.

[Madrun Badrun]

Real question Benji, as the biggest free speech advocate here, why were you willing to engage with Himu on just about anything, but were quiet as a mouse when it came to his bigoted rants? I want us to have a concrete example to work on.  Is this the correct response or sensible solution to bigotry? Is your stance, that this is just Himu and nothing can be done, and if others are uncomfortable they should leave?     

[benjipwns]

Real question Benji, as the biggest free speech advocate here, why were you willing to engage with Himu on just about anything, but were quiet as a mouse when it came to his bigoted rants? I want us to have a concrete example to work on.  Is this the correct response or sensible solution to bigotry? Is your stance, that this is just Himu and nothing can be done, and if others are uncomfortable they should leave?     

No poster has a duty to respond to anything, I would not post on a forum that compelled speech.

[Madrun Badrun]

Real question Benji, as the biggest free speech advocate here, why were you willing to engage with Himu on just about anything, but were quiet as a mouse when it came to his bigoted rants? I want us to have a concrete example to work on.  Is this the correct response or sensible solution to bigotry? Is your stance, that this is just Himu and nothing can be done, and if others are uncomfortable they should leave?     

No poster has a duty to respond to anything, I would not post on a forum that compelled speech.

You don't have a duty or a responsibility to do anything, I'm asking why didn't you.  Is saying someone is wrong about something a limit on their free speech?  Is banning a poster for hate speech a bridge too far?   I'm honestly asking because it feels like the Bore is evidence that the kind of free speech haven and hands-off moderation being at least implicitly argued for does not work.  You asked for my opinions on solutions, I'm asking for yours and I'm trying to understand a value system that values free speech above everything else, because it is the primal right from which all others flow, but then dismisses also saying something against bigotry as not my duty.   

And this is mostly for the clowns in the audience:

1) I am not compelling speech
2) I am not saying you agree with Himu
3) I am not saying you are a bigot
4) I am not calling for you to be banned
5) I am not calling for the EU to change its laws and have you arrested

[benjipwns]

You don't have a duty or a responsibility to do anything, I'm asking why didn't you.  Is saying someone is wrong about something a limit on their free speech?  Is banning a poster for hate speech a bridge too far?

Uh, no, I support free speech.

Asking why I didn't respond to a specific post made by someone else is implying that I had a duty to reply. If you're merely curious it's because I tend not to argue with the religious about their religion, I'm irreligious and have never not been so I don't even get it at all and they all sound like cults to me so it's not a field I feel remotely qualified to put things in terms the religious would understand, and I have poked at Himu's gay agenda conspiracy theory before. (Additionally, many of Himu's posts on his latest interests are simply not able to be responded to because it would take years to address each and every claim.)

If all you're talking about is which moderation standards people should adopt because they're good ideas (or not adopt because they're bad ideas), then I again apologize for lumping you in with Occam. In general, I believe moderation standards should be lax, clear and equally enforced.

[Madrun Badrun]

OK, I just wanted to be clear on what free speech actually means in practice.  And I wanted to understand, why this debate was worth your engagement but Himu's was not, and it's because you are not qualified to make judgments about religious matters.  A few other questions, do you think Himu's behaviour in one context, where he is ranting about his gay agenda conspiracy theory, should preclude interacting with him in other contexts? Or to put it another way, does encouraging him in other contexts, but ignoring the bigotry, also implicitly encourage this?  The reason I ask is that earlier in the thread you said something along the lines that 'off-site' behavior shouldn't have onsite consequences when referring to Trump's election fraud claims, if IRC.  Does this decontextualization also apply across a users posts.  Like I'm wondering if each post should be taken as separate instances and decontexualized in order to have a clear and equally enforced standard?  If this is not possible, does this mean that moderation standards should be lowered to clear violations where a specific post can be pointed at as a smoking gun?   

[benjipwns]

I care about free speech but not religious nutters? Is that weird?

[Madrun Badrun]

I care about free speech but not religious nutters? Is that weird?

I value fighting hate over free speech.  It's weird to me to see a value system that seemingly stops at free speech.  Like there are things that get us going, and no one will be consistent about their values, but I truly do not understand about being passionate about free speech and then being able to dismiss bigotry as religious nuttery.  And I see how that goes, as religious nuttery is free speech too, but man does that seem like bunk in practice.  It's one thing to argue why laws need to respect that, it's another thing to argue for moderation to respect that, and it's totally another thing to make it a personal philosophy about engagement. 

[benjipwns]

I value fighting hate over free speech.  It's weird to me to see a value system that seemingly stops at free speech.  Like there are things that get us going, and no one will be consistent about their values, but I truly do not understand about being passionate about free speech and then being able to dismiss bigotry as religious nuttery.  And I see how that goes, as religious nuttery is free speech too, but man does that seem like bunk in practice.  It's one thing to argue why laws need to respect that, it's another thing to argue for moderation to respect that, and it's totally another thing to make it a personal philosophy about engagement.

I have no idea what you're even trying to accuse me of at this point.

You asked why I posted about one thing (you and Occam seemingly alleging that scores of deaths were directly caused by too much free speech) and did not respond to some other post (unspecified Himu post) and I told you. From this you decided I have "a value system that seemingly stops at free speech" and now after saying I didn't have a duty to respond to any posts you're back to attacking me for not responding to a specific post you wanted me to respond to but never asked me to? And what does any of this have to do with free speech? Or moderation?

[Uncle]

I'm honestly asking because it feels like the Bore is evidence that the kind of free speech haven and hands-off moderation being at least implicitly argued for does not work.

what real-world violence can be traced back to statements made on thebore?

or it doesn't work because you find it distasteful and it makes you not want to post here? isn't that your decision and no one else's? as long as real world consequences don't occur beyond speech, what basis is there to criticize?

[Occam]

The saner ones get driven away and eventually only the refuse remains.

[Tuckers Law]

I'm honestly asking because it feels like the Bore is evidence that the kind of free speech haven and hands-off moderation being at least implicitly argued for does not work.

what real-world violence can be traced back to statements made on thebore?

or it doesn't work because you find it distasteful and it makes you not want to post here? isn't that your decision and no one else's? as long as real world consequences don't occur beyond speech, what basis is there to criticize?

Hey now!

Some reseterans tried to get Stufte fired for what he posted here, and that's kind of like violence, let's call it financial-violence.

[Uncle]

The saner ones get driven away and eventually only the refuse remains.

and to other minds which all consider themselves sane, a different perspective means a different assessment of what occurs

what does this have to do with ending real-world violence through stricter moderation? if no one is actually advocating for violence, and no violence that can be traced back to speech on a particular social media platform is occuring, then everything is operating as it should

[Madrun Badrun]

I value fighting hate over free speech.  It's weird to me to see a value system that seemingly stops at free speech.  Like there are things that get us going, and no one will be consistent about their values, but I truly do not understand about being passionate about free speech and then being able to dismiss bigotry as religious nuttery.  And I see how that goes, as religious nuttery is free speech too, but man does that seem like bunk in practice.  It's one thing to argue why laws need to respect that, it's another thing to argue for moderation to respect that, and it's totally another thing to make it a personal philosophy about engagement.

I have no idea what you're even trying to accuse me of at this point.

You asked why I posted about one thing (you and Occam seemingly alleging that scores of deaths were directly caused by too much free speech) and did not respond to some other post (unspecified Himu post) and I told you. From this you decided I have "a value system that seemingly stops at free speech" and now after saying I didn't have a duty to respond to any posts you're back to attacking me for not responding to a specific post you wanted me to respond to but never asked me to? And what does any of this have to do with free speech? Or moderation?

I'm not accusing you of anything.  I'm saying that in the same way I think people do not have a duty to help an old lady as she is getting robbed, people that don't help her are kind of gross, especially if they are the kind of people who have advocated to create the kind of situation where old ladies get robbed.  You are advocating for minimal moderation, and then when something happens, 'going not my duty', or worse, saying nothing ought to be done because it goes against your personal free speech beliefs or infringes on others' free speech, as if free speech on the bore and in the law are the thing.  You saw something and said nothing.  You had no duty to say anything but you did have the option.  Sure, you can argue that a duty is implied if you face the social stigma of me questioning you for not doing it, but I'm not going to buy that.  The point is we have seen what you advocate for in action and I'm questing if that is actually good and something desirable.  Sure free speech is a great value, and something no sane person would argue against, surely, but it seems like Himu is a decent case study against your philosophy in application.  It seem like if you value free speech above all things, the solution to bigotry is to sit back and watch.         

[benjipwns]

I'm not accusing you of anything.  I'm saying that in the same way I think people do not have a duty to help an old lady as she is getting robbed, people that don't help her are kind of gross, especially if they are the kind of people who have advocated to create the kind of situation where old ladies get robbed.  You are advocating for minimal moderation, and then when something happens, 'going not my duty', or worse, saying nothing ought to be done because it goes against your personal free speech beliefs or infringes on others' free speech, as if free speech on the bore and in the law are the thing.  You saw something and said nothing.  You had no duty to say anything but you did have the option.  Sure, you can argue that a duty is implied if you face the social stigma of me questioning you for not doing it, but I'm not going to buy that.  The point is we have seen what you advocate for in action and I'm questing if that is actually good and something desirable.  Sure free speech is a great value, and something no sane person would argue against, surely, but it seems like Himu is a decent case study against your philosophy in application.  It seem like if you value free speech above all things, the solution to bigotry is to sit back and watch.         

What are you even talking about dude? When did I not respond to Himu because of something to do with free speech beliefs? When did I advocate for minimal moderation other than outline my general principles after you started asking?

I don't want Himu imprisoned for posting anything legal on The Bore, you have implied you completely agree, so we agree 100% on free speech here.

[Madrun Badrun]

Actually, I am accusing you of something.  You did not reply to Himu's bigotry.  You said that it was because of your lack of religious expertise.   That is bullshit.  Do you seriously think you need to be able to argue the Quran in depth to be able to say, 'this makes me or other people uncomfortable, knock it off our I'm done engaging with you?',  I'm assuming that such a response goes against your notion of free speech and hence why it was not done.  Your minimal moderation advocacy can be deduced by what you are arguing for, silly shit like thinking off-site behavior should not have onsite consequences. 

You don't have a duty or a responsibility to do anything, I'm asking why didn't you.  Is saying someone is wrong about something a limit on their free speech?  Is banning a poster for hate speech a bridge too far?

Uh, no, I support free speech.

We do not agree.  When did you advocate for minimal moderation?  Right there bud.   

[benjipwns]

Actually, I am accusing you of something.  You did not reply to Himu's bigotry.  You said that it was because of your lack of religious expertise.   That is bullshit.  Do you seriously think you need to be able to argue the Quran in depth to be able to say, 'this makes me or other people uncomfortable, knock it off our I'm done engaging with you?',  I'm assuming that such a response goes against your notion of free speech and hence why it was not done.

So you do think I have a duty to respond to posts you want me to? Whatever post you wanted me to respond but didn't ask me to I probably didn't even read, especially if it was a giant Himu post where I knew where it was going from the start. Apparently now my not responding to posts I didn't read is some kind of "notion of free speech"? And that I should be going around denouncing posters for posts I didn't even read? Even if I did read it now I have a duty to respond to it and try to convince Himu of the error of his ways rather than think "lol dum" and look at something else? Or else what? An accusation this is somehow a betrayal of my principles? Somehow proof that imprisoning people for speech is superior to free speech? Or just a warning that I'll be added to the list next?

You don't have a duty or a responsibility to do anything, I'm asking why didn't you.  Is saying someone is wrong about something a limit on their free speech?  Is banning a poster for hate speech a bridge too far?

Uh, no, I support free speech.

We do not agree.  When did you advocate for minimal moderation?  Right there bud.   

If thinking posters should be able to respond to others and moderators should be able to ban posters is "miminal moderation" then, yes, I advocate for it.

[Uncle]

You saw something and said nothing.

Do you seriously think you need to be able to argue the Quran in depth to be able to say, 'this makes me or other people uncomfortable, knock it off our I'm done engaging with you?'

if you saw it then where were you? I see a lot of occam posts in proximity to himu, but no madrun

[Madrun Badrun]

Ok, now you are pretending to not be aware of what Himu was posting because you didn't read it as you did not want to engage with his bigotry.  Again not a duty, just a schmuck for ignoring those posts while replying to others. 

Somehow proof that imprisoning people for speech is superior to free speech? Or just a warning that I'll be added to the list next?

And there it is, we have already established that this was a non-sense thing from the start.  You came in hot because of your free speech fetishism, trying to mischaracterize my argument as wanting the EU to imprison people for free speech, and get right back at it when trying to dismiss what is being said now.  When you come in hot for this, but ignore Himu that says something about you and the things you value.  Maybe it was a free speech thing, maybe religious expertise, maybe you didn't read his posts.  Sure.  And before you come back to duty or compelled speech, shut the fuck up. 

[Madrun Badrun]

You saw something and said nothing.

Do you seriously think you need to be able to argue the Quran in depth to be able to say, 'this makes me or other people uncomfortable, knock it off our I'm done engaging with you?'

if you saw it then where were you? I see a lot of occam posts in proximity to himu, but no madrun

You can look at my post history for such.  But teehee it's hypocritical to call someone actively engaging with him for not calling him out when you don't do it at every post. 

[Uncle]

I thought every post was important? if you see something, say something

if we don't see a reply we have to assume tacit approval on your part, similar to how we can assume the same for benji

fighting against hate takes a lot of vigilance, every time someone posts a fact, a wikipedia link, a dictionary entry that constitutes hate speech in the current context unlike last week, we must point it out

stay strong 

[Madrun Badrun]

You're right.  I see that you are a dumb fucking animal.  I see it, got to say it.  Thanks for the motivation. 

[benjipwns]

Ok, now you are pretending to not be aware of what Himu was posting because you didn't read it as you did not want to engage with his bigotry.  Again not a duty, just a schmuck for ignoring those posts while replying to others. 

Somehow proof that imprisoning people for speech is superior to free speech? Or just a warning that I'll be added to the list next?

And there it is, we have already established that this was a non-sense thing from the start.  You came in hot because of your free speech fetishism, trying to mischaracterize my argument as wanting the EU to imprison people for free speech, and get right back at it when trying to dismiss what is being said now.  When you come in hot for this, but ignore Himu that says something about you and the things you value.  Maybe it was a free speech thing, maybe religious expertise, maybe you didn't read his posts.  Sure.  And before you come back to duty or compelled speech, shut the fuck up.

Ah, so you were just being a complete asshole by accusing innocent people of having caused mass death. You didn't actually have any point here other than to spread hate and try to take me to task for something you claim I don't need to do and you never asked me to do.

Let me know when you want to get back to free speech or moderation or Twitter or Elon Musk instead of whatever crawled up your ass about me personally for not meeting your undeclared standards.

[Uncle]

You're right.  I see that you are a dumb fucking animal.  I see it, got to say it.  Thanks for the motivation.

that's perfect, that's the kind of fiery intensity required to make sure hate is kept as far as possible from social media platforms

[Madrun Badrun]

Ok, now you are pretending to not be aware of what Himu was posting because you didn't read it as you did not want to engage with his bigotry.  Again not a duty, just a schmuck for ignoring those posts while replying to others. 

Somehow proof that imprisoning people for speech is superior to free speech? Or just a warning that I'll be added to the list next?

And there it is, we have already established that this was a non-sense thing from the start.  You came in hot because of your free speech fetishism, trying to mischaracterize my argument as wanting the EU to imprison people for free speech, and get right back at it when trying to dismiss what is being said now.  When you come in hot for this, but ignore Himu that says something about you and the things you value.  Maybe it was a free speech thing, maybe religious expertise, maybe you didn't read his posts.  Sure.  And before you come back to duty or compelled speech, shut the fuck up.

Ah, so you were just being a complete asshole by accusing innocent people of having caused mass death. You didn't actually have any point here other than to spread hate and try to take me to task for something you claim I don't need to do and you never asked me to do.

Let me know when you want to get back to free speech or moderation or Twitter or Elon Musk instead of whatever crawled up your ass about me personally for not meeting your undeclared standards.

Sure Benjo, will do.  edit: Also cool conflation of hate speech and being mean.  Great minds think a like.

You're right.  I see that you are a dumb fucking animal.  I see it, got to say it.  Thanks for the motivation.

that's perfect, that's the kind of fiery intensity required to make sure hate is kept as far as possible from social media platforms

Cool conflation of hate speech with being mean to you.  Or do you identify as a dumb fucking animal now and think that's a protected group?

[Kurt Russell]

You're right.  I see that you are a dumb fucking animal.  I see it, got to say it.  Thanks for the motivation.

Careful, now. That sounds like hate speech. You don't want to make Uncle do a genocide.

[Madrun Badrun]

You're right.  I see that you are a dumb fucking animal.  I see it, got to say it.  Thanks for the motivation.

Careful, now. That sounds like hate speech. You don't want to make Uncle do a genocide.

[benjipwns]

Sure Benjo, will do.  edit: Also cool conflation of hate speech and being mean.  Great minds think a like.

I did no such conflation.

[Uncle]

Cool conflation of hate speech with being mean to you.  Or do you identify as a dumb fucking animal now and think that's a protected group?

whoa, hey now, I didn't say you hated anyone, I just approve of the intensity

as long as you keep responding passionately to posts like himu's, doggedly make sure he cannot spread his hate, then the world will be slightly safer

[Madrun Badrun]

Sure Benjo, will do.  edit: Also cool conflation of hate speech and being mean.  Great minds think a like.

I did no such conflation.

Sure was a word choice then, in a discussion about hate speech.  But hey at least you have cover for not being lumped in with the other chumps. 

[benjipwns]

I see accusing millions of people of being active participants in a horrific crime on the basis of a shared characteristic to be an equivalent form of hate as accusing LGBT+ people of being groomers, especially if in both cases you're saying "someone should do something to stop this" without getting specific about what you want, sorry.