Yet more problematic stuff

[Brian Peacock]

It's called free-market economics. It's supposed to be a good thing.

[Cunt]

It's called free-market economics. It's supposed to be a good thing.

of course it is, I wouldn't try to stop them selling their bad food. I would, however, support an effort to 'sell' better foods. With that in mind, I might dress as a banana and hand out fresh fruit at our next local race.

Maybe dress as two bananas...

[Joe]

I guess the number that I'd be interested in is what percentage of online users are affected here. 3,300 seems awfully small.

How much protection do you think is appropriate, to shield you from harmful ideas?

Also, who will be deciding which ideas you need to be protected from?

Or is this 'protection' something you are ok with only when it is 'protecting' someone else?

You just can't help yourself, focusing on me personally, can you?

That's because you can't argue with the numbers. 3000 out of 14,100,000 Twitter users in the UK is a really small amount for all the crying I see.

And, as the article Hermit linked to said, only "1,696 people were charged and 1,399 convicted."

I think Brian is right, Breitbart is pushing the OUTRAGE button to get clicks from cucks. I guess they have to make money some way.

[Hermit]

And, as the article Hermit linked to said, only "1,696 people were charged and 1,399 convicted."

More importantly is the slight of hand employed by the article in The Times as well as Breitbart. To repeat. They claim per Times headline is "Police arresting nine people a day in fight against web trolls". This is not what the data show. The data include all arrests made under the Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Telephones are part of the public electronic communications network. The published data make no distinction between the various electronic communications so used.

This means that even if we knew how many arrests led to successful prosecutions, we could not determine how many of them were arrested for harassing ex-partners, or breaking AVO conditions and how many ran foul of Section 127 via public statements on the internet. Your guess is as good as mine, but we can be certain that the number for the latter is way below nine per day.

[Joe]

And, as the article Hermit linked to said, only "1,696 people were charged and 1,399 convicted."

More importantly is the slight of hand employed by the article in The Times as well as Breitbart. To repeat. They claim per Times headline is "Police arresting nine people a day in fight against web trolls". This is not what the data show. The data include all arrests made under the Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. Telephones are part of the public electronic communications network. The published data make no distinction between the various electronic communications so used.

This means that even if we knew how many arrests led to successful prosecutions, we could not determine how many of them were arrested for harassing ex-partners, or breaking AVO conditions and how many ran foul of Section 127 via public statements on the internet. Your guess is as good as mine, but we can be certain that the number for the latter is way below nine per day.

Agreed, but I feel my point is also important. The increase in arrests is a blip in a infinitesimal portion of the speech happening online in the UK. I believe it's important to keep our problems in perspective.

I guess I'm just used to Breitbart's dishonesty to the point I take it for granted. It's like with Trump. I don't get upset, or even pay attention to what he says or tweets. After over 10,000 documented lies, I just assume he's lying to begin with.

[Cunt]

I guess the number that I'd be interested in is what percentage of online users are affected here. 3,300 seems awfully small.

How much protection do you think is appropriate, to shield you from harmful ideas?

Also, who will be deciding which ideas you need to be protected from?

Or is this 'protection' something you are ok with only when it is 'protecting' someone else?

You just can't help yourself, focusing on me personally, can you?

That's because you can't argue with the numbers. 3000 out of 14,100,000 Twitter users in the UK is a really small amount for all the crying I see.

And, as the article Hermit linked to said, only "1,696 people were charged and 1,399 convicted."

I think Brian is right, Breitbart is pushing the OUTRAGE button to get clicks from cucks. I guess they have to make money some way.

I noticed you avoided my question, with customary bravery.

Your courage is only surpassed by your thoughtfulness.

[Joe]

I guess the number that I'd be interested in is what percentage of online users are affected here. 3,300 seems awfully small.

How much protection do you think is appropriate, to shield you from harmful ideas?

Also, who will be deciding which ideas you need to be protected from?

Or is this 'protection' something you are ok with only when it is 'protecting' someone else?

You just can't help yourself, focusing on me personally, can you?

That's because you can't argue with the numbers. 3000 out of 14,100,000 Twitter users in the UK is a really small amount for all the crying I see.

And, as the article Hermit linked to said, only "1,696 people were charged and 1,399 convicted."

I think Brian is right, Breitbart is pushing the OUTRAGE button to get clicks from cucks. I guess they have to make money some way.

I noticed you avoided my question, with customary bravery.

Your courage is only surpassed by your thoughtfulness.

[Cunt]

That's about the most sensible thing you have suggested yet, in the history of this forum.

You must have been learning to read recently. Congrats, Joe! Good job!

[Joe]

That's about the most sensible thing you have suggested yet, in the history of this forum.

You must have been learning to read recently. Congrats, Joe! Good job!

I'm glad I found something you can handle. Stop before you go blind.

[Hermit]

Your courage is only surpassed by your thoughtfulness.

I have suspected you of being a professional politician.

Is this you being stupid? Or lying?

Objective reality must be uncomfortable for you though...

It is the amount of courage I expected you to have, around your 'ideas'.

Is it problematic that none of you have the courage to make jokes about sensitive subjects anymore?

You just can't help yourself, focusing on me personally.

[JimC]

[Joe]

Your courage is only surpassed by your thoughtfulness.

I have suspected you of being a professional politician.

Is this you being stupid? Or lying?

Objective reality must be uncomfortable for you though...

It is the amount of courage I expected you to have, around your 'ideas'.

Is it problematic that none of you have the courage to make jokes about sensitive subjects anymore?

You just can't help yourself, focusing on me personally.

You noticed that too!

I guess the number that I'd be interested in is what percentage of online users are affected here. 3,300 seems awfully small.

How much protection do you think is appropriate, to shield you from harmful ideas?

Also, who will be deciding which ideas you need to be protected from?

Or is this 'protection' something you are ok with only when it is 'protecting' someone else?

You just can't help yourself, focusing on me personally, can you?

That's because you can't argue with the numbers. 3000 out of 14,100,000 Twitter users in the UK is a really small amount for all the crying I see.

And, as the article Hermit linked to said, only "1,696 people were charged and 1,399 convicted."

I think Brian is right, Breitbart is pushing the OUTRAGE button to get clicks from cucks. I guess they have to make money some way.

[laklak]

"Clicks from cucks"

[Hermit]

Your courage is only surpassed by your thoughtfulness.

I have suspected you of being a professional politician.

Is this you being stupid? Or lying?

Objective reality must be uncomfortable for you though...

It is the amount of courage I expected you to have, around your 'ideas'.

Is it problematic that none of you have the courage to make jokes about sensitive subjects anymore?

You just can't help yourself, focusing on me personally.

You noticed that too!

It's one irony, probably noticed by everyone who reads along, except for our member from Yellowknife himself. I only searched through the posts he made in the past four days. There are hundreds more examples among his 7300+ contributions. I'm using "contributions" in the loose sense here.

Another irony is the number of times he accuses us of reading only from sources that agree with our views while just about all his links point to the usual right wing sites, Breitbart, Crowder etc ad nauseam.

Not that there's anything wrong with getting personal or linking to sources the views of which you agree with, but objecting to others doing either while indulging in those habits oneself reeks of hypocrisy. Our member from Yellowknife draws my mind to the politicians and evangelists who condemn sexual promiscuity, homosexuality and the use of recreational drugs while praising the institution of marriage and the sanctity of foetal lives, then get caught having an affair and suggesting the mistress have an abortion, or getting caught having sex with a boyfriend and smoking some meth.

[Joe]

It's one irony, probably noticed by everyone who reads along, except for our member from Yellowknife himself. I only searched through the posts he made in the past four days. There are hundreds more examples among his 7300+ contributions. I'm using "contributions" in the loose sense here.

Another irony is the number of times he accuses us of reading only from sources that agree with our views while just about all his links point to the usual right wing sites, Breitbart, Crowder etc ad nauseam.

Not that there's anything wrong with getting personal or linking to sources the views of which you agree with, but objecting to others doing either while indulging in those habits oneself reeks of hypocrisy. Our member from Yellowknife draws my mind to the politicians and evangelists who condemn sexual promiscuity, homosexuality and the use of recreational drugs while praising the institution of marriage and the sanctity of foetal lives, then get caught having an affair and suggesting the mistress have an abortion, or getting caught having sex with a boyfriend and smoking some meth.

He doesn't seem very self aware. After a few months of seeing his "contributions," I quit taking him seriously.