There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo

@[email protected]

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Well that is quite the false equivalence.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

I did not advocate for violence. I do advocate for consequences to actions. If you say something vile, you should expect for people to treat you as someone who said something vile.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

I 100% agree with you.

Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. If these students and this letter author believe in their cause, they should have the courage of their convictions. They should put their names out and be proud of their ideals. They should be willing to accept the consequences that that speech brings.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

I have reread the article several times. No one in it advocates for violence against the authors of the letter. They do advocate for them losing jobs and other economic advantages. So not sure where you are even getting this from.

But to explore your ideology a little further. Do you advocate the same thing for Jewish people who support Israel? My guess is you don’t. Do you condemn Hamas for their “day of rage” proclamation, an actual call to violence?

I am curious for your answer. My guess is all of a sudden your position is more nuanced.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Just as there is no requirement that it be consequence free.

But to further your point. There is no right to anonymity. There is no requirement for what you say morally or ethically.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

You skip a key point, the first amendment is protection from the government. The case you reference is specifically in reference to government persecution.

Where is the government in this case? You do not have a general first amendment right to anonymity.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

I am sure bakers that don’t want to make cakes for gay people use similar arguments.

If they cannot justify their speech to the public, there is probably an issue with what they said.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

That is true. In real life people do not have to be introspective. I’d doesn’t mean you shouldn’t point it out.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Let me start with where we agree. There are no good guys in this conflict.

Violence is response to speech is always wrong. Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.

While I do not think anyone is in actual danger at the Harvard campus, if there was a truly credible threat, a person should be protected.

On to where we likely disagree. Issuing a statement that Israel is wholly to blame for this situation the day of a massacre of 1300 civilians, many woman, children, and the elderly, is reprehensible. If a student felt justified in making that statement, they should accept the economic consequences that come with it.

My personal feeling is that while Israel was initially justified in securing their border and trying to recover the woman, children, and elderly Hamas took hostage, that the situation is devolving into collective punishment and a humanitarian crisis.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

You miss the point of the cases. A mayor, a police department, or a board of elections cannot force you to identify yourself online either via law or the courts.

Whether you like it or not it is not illegal for another private citizen to dox you.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

If it is not objectionable and there should be no punishment as you say, then there should be no issues with them signing there names to their statement. Correct?

They do not sign their names because they fear economic retribution. So, clearly, you are purposefully misreading my comment or you a troll. Either way own your behavior.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Then where is the government here? You reading of the case law makes a claim that protection of anonymity extends to private citizens. That is not the case. It is not findable in the case law. You are just plain wrong here.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

You are making my point for me. The founding fathers published the federalist papers for fear of being dismissed because they were at the Philadelphia convention and there was a worry that the paper would be seen as self serving and do damage to their reputations and thereby their income. Their concern was an economic one.

Also when a baker hung a sign refusing to make wedding cakes it most certainly was news. It also caused him great economic harm. As it should.

I get the current fashion of political tribalism dictates that one must defend their side even when it does something awful or ridiculous. However, when you say vile things either on the left or the right you should face the consequences.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

I see, if it is speech you agree with and believe that there should be no punishment, then it is find to be anonymous. Is the reverse true, if this was an anti-Arab hate group, would you call for such protection? I doubt it. You would call for them to be unmasked and punished.

Also it is a logical fallacy that to demand the to take greater risk in the name of a cause just to make a valid point. As one who seems as concerned with logic yourself, you should know that.

In the end, I know where your disingenuous argument comes from. You are a rules for thee and not for me kind of person.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

You miss the point of the cases. A mayor, a police department, or a board of elections cannot force you to identify yourself online either via law or the courts.

Whether you like it or not it is not illegal for another private citizen to dox you.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Just to take this to its logical conclusion, because this is the actual case with the baker. I can say anything I want to gay people and by your logic should be protected. It is only when, after they find out about my beliefs (and make a point to try to use my services), the baker should be forced make the cake or decline their business that it becomes distasteful?

I would have found hate speech distasteful before that but it seems that is just me.

Also, and your logic is pretty pretzeled so I am trying to follow it to its conclusion. Because you agree with the speech, because you believe a bunch of Harvard students, who made a public statement and therefore made themselves targets of publicity, are oppressed, then their identities should be protected. But only because you believe their speech is justice. If it was unjust they should be hauled to the town square?

That is some interesting logic.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Then where is the government here? Your reading of the case law makes a claim that protection of anonymity extends to private citizen against private citizen. That is not the case. It is not findable in the case law. You are just plain wrong here.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

You make my point for me. Neo Nazi should have there names attached to their speech. Every person who went to Charlottesville or January 6th should be named and shamed. When you say vile things you should face the economic consequences.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

At this point the reading your word salad is the issue not my reading comprehension. It is becoming more and more difficult to read your dissertation.

Let see if this works:

Unsubscribe

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Whose comprehension is bad now. My critique was of the self indulgent length of your posts, not the grade level of the writing. It seems concise writing is beyond you.

Trying to read your paragraph upon paragraph of nonsense is draining my will to live. So, if you take it as a win, then good for you. You are a master of grinding out wins though attrition.

I will leave you with a Sharon Adler quote, “Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.”

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Gee, if I add a crime to the thing you just said it becomes a crime.

I say, “Hey that guy suck!”

You respond, “Well if you murder him that would be a crime. Or are you okay with murder?”

It is a false equivalence.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Oh I’m following. You couch your concern for these students to hide your love of terrorist acts and subtle antisemitism It is a righteous blanket of support for an innocent Palestine group that was only reacting to circumstances is your argument. But when then purposefully casting the Israeli incursion in a different light. They are both highly suspect acts. But for you, there is only one side. No matter what despicable acts they commit.

You say an organized military should not be attacking civilians, the children of Kfar Aza agree with you. They would have prefer to have not been killed and kidnapped by an organized military attack from Hamas.

Also you keep saying I’m a free speech absolutist. You either don’t know what that means if you are purposefully misunderstanding the term. Free speech absolutist, would absolutely insist that there is a right to anonymity for these student. I am literally arguing the opposite.

So yes, I think you are a troll. You seem to be casting similar acts differently in bad faith. You also keep purposely misusing the term free speech absolutist in reference to my comments.

I know, I know we are both just one comment away from changing each other’s mind of finding common ground.

If I thought this was just a slight difference of opinion, I would keep trying to find common ground. However, my guess is that you only see black and white. Hamas good, Israel bad. So any conversation beyond that with you is going to be fruitless.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

You got me. The dumbass part is where you really got me. I am sure being 15 that is a great stinging rebuke.

Except the difference is you keep adding crimes to my example and then yelling that doxing is a crime. Sure if you harass people after you do it, it is a crime. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The moment of contact is the crime. People in the article want these students doxed so they can ensure they don’t get jobs. Comments supporting terrorism will make people not want to hire you.

Also an anonymous Internet forum is different than signing a public statement. But for you, they are the same it seems. I guess nuance is lost on you.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

I am a big fan of the Cornell Note Taking System. It really helped organize my undergrad notes much better than any other system I tried. Also, it is the only system that is Andy Bernard approved!

Meta is so unwilling to pay for news under a new Canadian law that it's starting to block it on Facebook and Instagram in that country (fortune.com)

Meta is so unwilling to pay for news under a new Canadian law that it’s starting to block it on Facebook and Instagram in that country::The rollout of the news ban on Facebook and Instagram for users in Canada will take place over the next few weeks.

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Not exactly…

Australia agreed to amend the law to make it much more favorable to Facebook. In essence, Facebook and Australia compromise.

theguardian.com/…/facebook-reverses-australia-new…

EcksrayYangkeyZooloo ,

Chairman Meow

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •