REPOST: When Trolls, Flame Wars and Cyber-Rage go too Far

Post by Lady Veteran
And interestingly, Megan Meiers mom is now working with legislators
to not only make these kinds of cyber-attacks illegal, but she also
wants to go after sites that give cyber-bullies a forum. Its a
slippery slope to be sure, but has huge implications for all social
media sites, forums, and communities that dont crack down enough on
inappropriate and abusive users.

Oh Christ... Don't get me wrong, I hate trolls and "cyber-bullies"...
However, the best solution is NNNEEEVVVEEERRR legal. Don't like how
"MySpcae" doesn't crack down on the cyber-bullies? Stop using "MySpace"
and instead find someplace that does! You are using a service that
MySpace offers. If you don't like the service they offer, DO NOT USE THE
SERVICE!!! The solution is NOT to legislate the service offered by a
third party!

Daedalus

2008-05-27 18:04:18 UTC

On Mon, 26 May 2008 20:54:48 +0000, The Master

Hey, another good post from you! You're on a roll!

Jade

The Master

2008-05-27 19:17:42 UTC

Post by Daedalus
Hey, another good post from you! You're on a roll!

Well perhaps you should listen more... :p

Seriously though Jade, just because you and I don't see eye to eye on some
issues, doesn't mean we can't, or are otherwise unable to, on other
issues. I believe in "freedom of", not "freedom from".

As it applies to this group, I don't like fat bashers, but they have the
right to be a fat basher. They have as much of a right to bitch about my
weight as I have to bitch about their bitching about my weight. I'm fat,
and it they don't like it, well they can kiss my fat ass... Someone calls
me a lard ass, I call them a size nazi, and all is as it should be... :)

The "issue", however, is when a skinny health nutjob wants to form a
calorie/fat tax on unhealthy food, or directly on people. Again,
government regulation of personal behavior is wrong, and a drastic
overstep of constitutional authority. I feel the same way about
anti-smoking laws. I don't smoke personally, but am often times "accused"
of being a smoker because I hate the laws prohibiting smoking from public
places.

Doesn't the phrase "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll
defend to the death, your right to say it" mean anything anymore?

Daedalus

2008-05-27 20:14:13 UTC

On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:17:42 +0000, The Master

Post by Daedalus
Hey, another good post from you! You're on a roll!

Well perhaps you should listen more... :p

As long as we don't take the fun out of it.

Post by The Master
Seriously though Jade, just because you and I don't see eye to eye on some
issues, doesn't mean we can't, or are otherwise unable to, on other
issues. I believe in "freedom of", not "freedom from".

This is a viewpoint I always respect.

Post by The Master
As it applies to this group, I don't like fat bashers, but they have the
right to be a fat basher. They have as much of a right to bitch about my
weight as I have to bitch about their bitching about my weight.

Absolutely 100% I don't agree with fat bashing language either. But
they have a right to say what they want. Even the ones that write what
amounts to hate speech about fat holocaust etc. It's disgusting, but
it is their opinion.

As an aside though, I know trolls pretty well and I suspect that many
of the ones making fat basher posts don't really even believe in what
they are writing. The troll's craft often amounts to writing
outrageous things just to watch people get pissed off. It works
extraordinarily well with certain individuals in SSFA.

Post by The Master
I'm fat,
and it they don't like it, well they can kiss my fat ass... Someone calls
me a lard ass, I call them a size nazi, and all is as it should be... :)

I see no problem with that arrangement.

Post by The Master
The "issue", however, is when a skinny health nutjob wants to form a
calorie/fat tax on unhealthy food, or directly on people. Again,
government regulation of personal behavior is wrong, and a drastic
overstep of constitutional authority.

And it doesn't work. History shows time and again that you can't
legislate culture. And you shouldn't either.

People look to the government to solve problems that can't be fixed by
anyone but the people themselves. It is a logical mess that always
pisses me off when I see things like how reporters are asking
politicians what they are going to do about AIDS. The implicaiton
being how will they stop it from spreading. Now I am someone who is a
big supporter of AIDS research and have participated in charity events
to raise money for it. But AIDS is a behavioral disease. The
government cannot regulate behavior and I don't want them to try. The
only thing they should do is educate children about it in school and
try to find a cure. Any American adult who doesn't know by now what
causes AIDS must be a hermit who isn't having sex anyway. Is the
government supposed to invade people's bedrooms and make sure there
are condoms being used? It is sad that people think these things
should be taken care of for them.

Post by The Master
I feel the same way about
anti-smoking laws. I don't smoke personally, but am often times "accused"
of being a smoker because I hate the laws prohibiting smoking from public
places.

Yup. Nanny laws are sickening. You have a choice to not work in an
environment where people are smoking. You have a choice to go to a non
smoking restaurant. As a restaurant/bar owner you should have the
choice to decide what type of business you want to have.

But because it gets them votes, politicians are saying screw personal
freedom, let's legislate! Have you noticed it causing a huge number of
smokers to quit? It works about as well as prohibition did.

Post by The Master
Doesn't the phrase "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll
defend to the death, your right to say it" mean anything anymore?

Most people who say it does, only say so until it comes to something
that they find offensive.

I'm afraid that soon we'll have anti-hate speech laws like they do in
England and Canada. You'll note how well those are working out.

People are being sent to jail for saying "Islamist" in public.

Jade

The Master

2008-05-27 22:34:12 UTC

And it doesn't work. History shows time and again that you can't
legislate culture. And you shouldn't either.

Yes, but it doesn't keep them from trying on a regular basis...

Post by Daedalus
People look to the government to solve problems that can't be fixed by
anyone but the people themselves.

Such as video game ratings and music warning labels, both are "voluntary"
industry standards, adopted to end government threats of regulation and
oversite.

Parents didn't like their kids listening to some random rap star of the
moment talk about how he killed some fucking bitch for taking his shit.
They wanted labels, so they can blindly approve of their kids listening
habbits. So now, the "clean" version will involve killing a woman for
taking his stuff... All they do is replace/beep out the curse words...
Still just as violent, only resulting in giving ignorant parents a false
sense of security. The label, in their opinion, is far better then
getting off their lazy ass, and actually get involved in their kid's life.

Post by The Master
Doesn't the phrase "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll
defend to the death, your right to say it" mean anything anymore?

Most people who say it does, only say so until it comes to something
that they find offensive.

*laugh* I find a lot of things "offensive". That's why I don't do it or
say it personally. But I'll be damned if I make someone else follow my
personal "moral code" just because I don't want to be offended...

Post by Daedalus
I'm afraid that soon we'll have anti-hate speech laws like they do in
England and Canada. You'll note how well those are working out.

We already have "hate crime" legislation. It seems that killing someone
because of their race or religion or sexual orientation, is some how worse
then killing them because of some other reason.

In this respect, what pisses me off to no end are blacks that say dumb
blonde or polock jokes... Those are "funny", but a black joke is
"racist"?

Ethel Snodgrass

2008-05-27 20:49:57 UTC

On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:17:42 +0000, The Master

Post by Daedalus
Hey, another good post from you! You're on a roll!

Well perhaps you should listen more... :p
Seriously though Jade, just because you and I don't see eye to eye on some
issues, doesn't mean we can't, or are otherwise unable to, on other
issues. I believe in "freedom of", not "freedom from".
As it applies to this group, I don't like fat bashers, but they have the
right to be a fat basher. They have as much of a right to bitch about my
weight as I have to bitch about their bitching about my weight. I'm fat,
and it they don't like it, well they can kiss my fat ass... Someone calls
me a lard ass, I call them a size nazi, and all is as it should be... :)
The "issue", however, is when a skinny health nutjob wants to form a
calorie/fat tax on unhealthy food, or directly on people. Again,
government regulation of personal behavior is wrong, and a drastic
overstep of constitutional authority. I feel the same way about
anti-smoking laws. I don't smoke personally, but am often times "accused"
of being a smoker because I hate the laws prohibiting smoking from public
places.
Doesn't the phrase "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll
defend to the death, your right to say it" mean anything anymore?

There can be a lot of twists to your philosophy in regard to the
government staying out of peoples personal business.

As a devils advocate let me submit the following scenario.

For example. If a citizen simply does not like to associate with
people of a particular race. Now say that this person owns a small
cafe. He is in violation of our present laws if he places sign on
the front door of his establishment notifying people of that race that
they are not welcome and will not be served if the enter.

In your opinion, should the government be restricting the business
owners rights to run his business according to his beliefs and wishes.

Ethel

The Master

2008-05-27 22:49:26 UTC

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
For example. If a citizen simply does not like to associate with
people of a particular race. Now say that this person owns a small
cafe. He is in violation of our present laws if he places sign on
the front door of his establishment notifying people of that race that
they are not welcome and will not be served if the enter.
In your opinion, should the government be restricting the business
owners rights to run his business according to his beliefs and wishes.

Short answer: Nope!

In my opinion, a white business owner should have the right to say "no
blacks". And if a black man doesn't like it, he can open shop right next
door and say "no whites". I believe that as a consumer within a
capitalist economy, you have the right to shop where you want. If you
support white biggot's business plan, by all means visit the shop. If you
don't support the white bigot's business plan, by all means visit another
shop! If a black rights group doesn't like it, they are even free to
picket the shop!

Do you by chance remember a series of TV adds that Chevron made a good
many years ago, talking about their "environmentally friendly policies"?
"Do people care? People do."? Environmentally aware consumers should
have been showing Chevron their support by exclusively buying gas from
Chevron. These types of market driving forces, are far more effective
then government programs that force action through legislation.

Ethel Snodgrass

2008-05-28 00:18:08 UTC

On Tue, 27 May 2008 22:49:26 +0000, The Master

You had no problem answering that one.. Lets try another scenario.
A man retires and is now capable of buying his dream retirement home
in the suburbs. He finds one in what appears to be a good
neighborhood and the house is what he and his significant other have
been pining for. It is in a residential neighborhood of approx 7200 sq
ft lots. The buy it and move in.

Six months later the nice neighbors next door sell the house and a new
neighbor moves in. The problems begin. The new neighbor is a hobbyist
mini farmer. He has chickens and he has ducks, and he has geese in
his back yard. The roosters crow, the ducks quack and the geese honk
and the flies gather most of the day and the roosters are also quite
active very early in the AM.

As if this isn't enough the new neighbor has two inoperative
automobiles parked in his drive covered with accumulated dust and with
many spider webs underneath. The new neighbored does not typically
cut his grass until it is 12 - 18 inches high.

And is this isn't enough the new neighbor very often plays music that
you find annoying on some very loud speakers that shake the windows in
your house.

You can say "It is his house and his right to live his own life
without the city government harassing him.

Or

You can call the City Code Compliance Office and report the situation
and expect them to remedy it.

What is your call?

Ethel

Post by The Master
Do you by chance remember a series of TV adds that Chevron made a good
many years ago, talking about their "environmentally friendly policies"?
"Do people care? People do."? Environmentally aware consumers should
have been showing Chevron their support by exclusively buying gas from
Chevron. These types of market driving forces, are far more effective
then government programs that force action through legislation.

The Master

2008-05-28 13:05:49 UTC

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
You had no problem answering that one.. Lets try another scenario.

This is fun. Do I win a prize or something if I get the correct answers?

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
A man retires and is now capable of buying his dream retirement home
in the suburbs. He finds one in what appears to be a good
neighborhood and the house is what he and his significant other have
been pining for. It is in a residential neighborhood of approx 7200 sq
ft lots. The buy it and move in.

Cool. Good for them.

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
Six months later the nice neighbors next door sell the house and a new
neighbor moves in. The problems begin. The new neighbor is a hobbyist
mini farmer. He has chickens and he has ducks, and he has geese in
his back yard. The roosters crow, the ducks quack and the geese honk
and the flies gather most of the day and the roosters are also quite
active very early in the AM.

So what? It's the new neighbor's land, and he has the right to do with it
as he wants. I know there are zoning laws and such in most cities that
would make such actions illegal. However, I think such laws are inane,
and should not exist.

As I have already said several times, I live outside city limits, in rual
county land. I didn't like being told what to do by city laws or an HOA.
I am willing to commute for an hour each way, just to have freedom over my
own land. I have neighbors who raise chickens, goats, even horses...
It's their land, and they can do with it as they please.

I have four dogs, and I have a fense in the back so they can't get out.
However, there is no leash law where I live, and dogs are free to roam the
neighborhood. However, the moment one of them steps on someone else's
land, they have the right to shoot the dog dead. Seriously...

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
As if this isn't enough the new neighbor has two inoperative
automobiles parked in his drive covered with accumulated dust and with
many spider webs underneath.

His cars, on his land? Fine with me... As long as the inoperative cars
aren't on someone else's land, the property owner has that right.

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
The new neighbored does not typically
cut his grass until it is 12 - 18 inches high.

Sounds like my grass actually... It's my grass, my land, my choice. If
you don't like tall grass, cut your own damn grass, and leave mine alone.

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
And is this isn't enough the new neighbor very often plays music that
you find annoying on some very loud speakers that shake the windows in
your house.

Out of your entire hypothetical situation, this is the only one I could
consider a valid point. Not saying it is valid, I am just saying I could
consider it...

Not because of "disturbing the peace" or anything, but ONLY because it
causes the windows to shake or vibrate. They belong to the home owner,
and they have the right for their windows to not shake or vibrate. If the
volume was lowered to the point where the windows were unaffected, then I
see no problem with it, no matter how annoying the music is.

Ideally, the two home owners should talk to eachother, and come to an
agreement. If that fails, then the old couple should buy an expensive 200
watt sterio with speakers that won't distort on such high power, aim them
at the offending home, and play Elvis. The neighbor should get the
hint...

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
You can say "It is his house and his right to live his own life
without the city government harassing him.
Or
You can call the City Code Compliance Office and report the situation
and expect them to remedy it.

I see nothing wrong with your above hypothetical situation, except for the
above mentioned vibrations in the windows.

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
What is your call?

"It is his house and his right to live his own life without the city
government harassing him."

Naughty Boy

2008-05-29 22:46:33 UTC

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
You had no problem answering that one.. Lets try another scenario.

This is fun. Do I win a prize or something if I get the correct answers?

Cool. Good for them.

So what? It's the new neighbor's land, and he has the right to do with
it as he wants. I know there are zoning laws and such in most cities
that would make such actions illegal. However, I think such laws are
inane, and should not exist.
As I have already said several times, I live outside city limits, in
rual county land. I didn't like being told what to do by city laws or
an HOA. I am willing to commute for an hour each way, just to have
freedom over my own land. I have neighbors who raise chickens, goats,
even horses... It's their land, and they can do with it as they please.
I have four dogs, and I have a fense in the back so they can't get out.
However, there is no leash law where I live, and dogs are free to roam
the neighborhood. However, the moment one of them steps on someone
else's land, they have the right to shoot the dog dead. Seriously...

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
As if this isn't enough the new neighbor has two inoperative
automobiles parked in his drive covered with accumulated dust and with
many spider webs underneath.

His cars, on his land? Fine with me... As long as the inoperative cars
aren't on someone else's land, the property owner has that right.

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
The new neighbored does not typically
cut his grass until it is 12 - 18 inches high.

Sounds like my grass actually... It's my grass, my land, my choice. If
you don't like tall grass, cut your own damn grass, and leave mine alone.

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
And is this isn't enough the new neighbor very often plays music that
you find annoying on some very loud speakers that shake the windows in
your house.

Out of your entire hypothetical situation, this is the only one I could
consider a valid point. Not saying it is valid, I am just saying I
could consider it...
Not because of "disturbing the peace" or anything, but ONLY because it
causes the windows to shake or vibrate. They belong to the home owner,
and they have the right for their windows to not shake or vibrate. If
the volume was lowered to the point where the windows were unaffected,
then I see no problem with it, no matter how annoying the music is.
Ideally, the two home owners should talk to eachother, and come to an
agreement. If that fails, then the old couple should buy an expensive
200 watt sterio with speakers that won't distort on such high power, aim
them at the offending home, and play Elvis. The neighbor should get the
hint...

Don't you know, that's similar to how wars start.

I see nothing wrong with your above hypothetical situation, except for
the above mentioned vibrations in the windows.

Post by Ethel Snodgrass
What is your call?

"It is his house and his right to live his own life without the city
government harassing him."

--
Look at that. The one, the only, the original, the stupid Naughty Boy is
back. Who said Usenet couldn't go further downhill?

Lady Veteran

2008-05-28 00:40:03 UTC

On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:17:42 +0000, The Master

Post by Daedalus
Hey, another good post from you! You're on a roll!

Well perhaps you should listen more... :p
Seriously though Jade, just because you and I don't see eye to eye on some
issues, doesn't mean we can't, or are otherwise unable to, on other
issues. I believe in "freedom of", not "freedom from".
As it applies to this group, I don't like fat bashers, but they have the
right to be a fat basher. They have as much of a right to bitch about my
weight as I have to bitch about their bitching about my weight. I'm fat,
and it they don't like it, well they can kiss my fat ass... Someone calls
me a lard ass, I call them a size nazi, and all is as it should be... :)
The "issue", however, is when a skinny health nutjob wants to form a
calorie/fat tax on unhealthy food, or directly on people. Again,
government regulation of personal behavior is wrong, and a drastic
overstep of constitutional authority. I feel the same way about
anti-smoking laws. I don't smoke personally, but am often times "accused"
of being a smoker because I hate the laws prohibiting smoking from public
places.
Doesn't the phrase "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll
defend to the death, your right to say it" mean anything anymore?

It means a lot to someone intelligent enough to appreciate Voltaire's
words but there is a dearth of that here.

LV-posted from SSFA
"I rode a tank and held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank."

---Sympathy for the Devil-The Rolling Stones
--------------------------------------------
"A fanatic cannot change his mind and will not
change the subject."

---Winston Churchill
----------------------------------------------
Tired of being harassed on Usenet? Join my group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/antiCHU
"I am mad as hell and I will not take it anymore!"

---Network

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

K. A. Cannon

2008-05-28 17:27:15 UTC

Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:17:42 +0000, The Master

<snip>

Post by The Master
Doesn't the phrase "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll
defend to the death, your right to say it" mean anything anymore?

It means a lot to someone intelligent enough to appreciate Voltaire's
words but there is a dearth of that here.

Voltaire never said that you ill bred, ignorant, semi-literate dolt.
--
K. A. Cannon
kcannon at insurgent dot org
(change the orgy to org to reply)

Don't worry about the world coming to an end today.
It's already tomorrow in Australia.
-Charles Schultz

COOSN-266-06-02374
Hammer of Thor, April 2005
PIERRE SALINGER MEMORIAL HOOK, LINE & SINKER June 2007
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle X 2
#9 People ruining UseNet lits.
#6 Top Assholes on the Net lits.
#5 Most hated Usenetizens of all time
#15 AUK psychos and felons lits
#5 Cog in the AUK Hate Machine

Daedalus

2008-05-28 19:16:22 UTC

On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:27:15 -0400, K. A. Cannon

Post by K. A. Cannon

Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:17:42 +0000, The Master

<snip>

Post by The Master
Doesn't the phrase "I may not agree with what you are saying, but I'll
defend to the death, your right to say it" mean anything anymore?

It means a lot to someone intelligent enough to appreciate Voltaire's
words but there is a dearth of that here.

Voltaire never said that you ill bred, ignorant, semi-literate dolt.

*giggle*

I'm going to get blamed for making people think she's stupid again.

Jade

Lady Veteran

2008-05-28 23:35:39 UTC

Post by Daedalus
On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:27:15 -0400, K. A. Cannon

Post by K. A. Cannon

Post by Daedalus
On Tue, 27 May 2008 19:17:42 +0000, The Master

<snip>