Politically motivated violence thread

[KG1]

Pretty amazing when you see it pulled together:

The Media Crossed a Line This Week and There’s No Going Back

Trump’s way of trying to articulate a broader point leaves quite abit less to be desired by some of the words he chooses to use and people can try to spin them anyway they want.

Many have framed them as intentionally racist which is open to interpretation but the media and a lot of Democrats are a contributing factor as an angst multiplyer feeding the disproportionate racist/white supremacy meme by using thier own rhetoric and underhanded political stunts designed to fuel the flames against Trump and his supporters as exhibited in that article.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

So how long should the temp ban be for making public that which is already public?

If he had stopped at publishing the list, saying only that "these people donated to the Trump campaign", then there would be no issue. When he "editorializes" and claims that these donors support white supremacy, I think that crosses a line, don't you? He didn't say, "In my opinion these people support white supremacy." He flat out claimed as truth something not in evidence, wouldn't you agree counselor? Seems malicious to me.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So how long should the temp ban be for making public that which is already public?

I say 6 months, minimum, for "accidents".
Permanent for malicious intent.

But that's just me.

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Now they're claiming it's "just satire". Yeah... of course it is.

 

[2A_Tom]

https://conservativefiringline.com/...n-advocates-genocide-of-all-trump-supporters/
Former CNN hack Reza Aslan advocates genocide of ALL Trump supporters

After today there is no longer any room for nuance. The President is a white nationalist terror leader. His supporters – ALL OF THEM – are by definition white nationalist terror supporters. The MAGA hat is a KKK hood. And this evil, racist scourge must be eradicated from society.
— Reza Aslan (@rezaaslan) August 4, 2019

 

[Phase2]

Compare and contrast:

Case #1- Reza Aslan advocates for genocide-level violence and is still on Twitter 4 days later.

Case #2- Mitch McConnell shares a video documenting the vile threats and harassment directed at his family and is suspended within 24 hours.

 

[rhino]

Compare and contrast:

Case #1- Reza Aslan advocates for genocide-level violence and is still on Twitter 4 days later.

Case #2- Mitch McConnell shares a video documenting the vile threats and harassment directed at his family and is suspended within 24 hours.

 

[jamil]

So how long should the temp ban be for making public that which is already public?

It’s not that he just made it public. It’s that he made it public to cancel the people involved. And ironically, many of those people also donated to him. I guess where we now live in a world where it’s deemed immoral and therefore worthy of canceling, to donate money to Republicans.

 

[KLB]

It’s not that he just made it public. It’s that he made it public to cancel the people involved. And ironically, many of those people also donated to him. I guess where we now live in a world where it’s deemed immoral and therefore worthy of canceling, to donate money to Republicans.

Except, he did not make it public. He basically editorialized already public information.

He is a douche for sure.

Progressives have gotten to where they want to please the online progressive mob. So much so that they will stoop to most any level to get that adoration from it.

 

[jamil]

Except, he did not make it public. He basically editorialized already public information.

He is a douche for sure.

Progressives have gotten to where they want to please the online progressive mob. So much so that they will stoop to most any level to get that adoration from it.

Yes. It's public information. Just because it's public doesn't make it easy to get. He dug up the information, and posted it to get the mob to cancel people who donated to "the enemy". That's still doxxing. The information divulged doesn't have to be private as long as it is identifying. That was my only point about it. Well. And he's a douche.

 

[T.Lex]

Is it equally douchy to dig through various reports and publicize those who donate to... oh let's say... Planned Parenthood? Or the DNC? Or local politicians?

 

[2A_Tom]

Or the INGO posts of a defendant in a ND case.

 

[printcraft]

Is it equally douchy to dig through various reports and publicize those who donate to... oh let's say... Planned Parenthood? Or the DNC? Or local politicians?

If you were to selectively edit the information to intentionally deceive... in other words... lie by omission (there should be a law against that...)... then yeah.

 

[BugI02]

Yes. It's public information. Just because it's public doesn't make it easy to get. He dug up the information, and posted it to get the mob to cancel people who donated to "the enemy". That's still doxxing. The information divulged doesn't have to be private as long as it is identifying. That was my only point about it. Well. And he's a douche.

Beside which, does the public information site list your employer? I haven't really looked at it, but I know my political donations do not have or require any information about who my employer was. Peeps who didn't own the contributing business or contribute in the name of an employer were almost certainly doxxed by cross-referencing other online data. And as far as the smart-ass question goes, how long is the temp ban for Castro when someone who loses his job or has his family attacked (or both) shoots him in the face? Everybody has their limits

 

[MCgrease08]

Or the INGO posts of a defendant in a ND case.

A warning shot is not an ND. Also not relevant to this thread.

 

[jamil]

Is it equally douchy to dig through various reports and publicize those who donate to... oh let's say... Planned Parenthood? Or the DNC? Or local politicians?

If it's to direct the mob's ire at specific individuals, yes. When is it ever NOT to direct the mob's ire.

Or the INGO posts of a defendant in a ND case.

Yes.

Or even doxxing to mob shame a youtuber for another moral wrong like stolen valor.

 

[2A_Tom]

Oh! my mistake.

Bugs point about employers is one that I was thinking of posting.

 

[T.Lex]

If you were to selectively edit the information to intentionally deceive... in other words... lie by omission (there should be a law against that...)... then yeah.

First - I thought INGO favored fewer laws, not more.

Second - I didn't see any deception. The people who donated money actually donated money. The "curation" is properly something that to bring up to mock the dude, and is itself a variation of exactly what he did: make public the people who donated to Trump.

Indiana's state system can be searched here:
Indiana Campaign Finance - Candidate Search

For many kinds of contributors, it asks for an "occupation" but there isn't really any enforcement mechanism for it if it is deceptive or only partially true. A person can be a "consultant" or "tax professional" or "accountant" or "number magician."

I do not know if Texas requires, instead of "occupation," to list the employer.

 

[2A_Tom]

Peaceful protest.
[video=youtube_share;TY8Uv-f7GQk]https://youtu.be/TY8Uv-f7GQk[/video]