After 8chan Possibly Linked To Another Shooting, Cloudflare CEO Defends Hosting It (theguardian.com) 407
The Guardian learned that the suspected mass shooter at an El Paso, Texas Walmart "is believed to also have posted a white nationalist rant on 8chan" -- then interviewed the CEO of the company hosting it.
If the connection between the 21-year-old suspect in Saturday's massacre and the 8chan document is confirmed -- and law enforcement sources told NBC News that they are "reasonably confident" that they are linked -- then the El Paso attack will mark the third mass shooting in less than six months that was announced in advance on the message board... Throughout the day on Saturday, 8chan users discussed the massacre and the suspect, with many referring to the alleged shooter as "our guy" and praising the number of people killed...
UPDATE: 8:25 p.m. PST: Cloudflare's CEO announced that they are in fact terminating 8chan, effective at midnight PST.
Here are his remarks to the Guardian less than 24 hours earlier... "If I could wave a magic wand and make all of the bad things that are on the internet go away -- and I personally would put the Daily Stormer and 8chan in that category of bad things -- I would wave that magic wand tomorrow," [Cloudflare CEO Matthew] Prince said. "It would be the easiest thing in the world and it would feel incredibly good for us to kick 8chan off our network, but I think it would step away from the obligation that we have and cause that community to still exist and be more lawless over time."
Prince argued that keeping "bad" sites within Cloudflare's network means that the company is able to help monitor activity and flag illegal content to law enforcement. While he would not comment on specifics, he said that Cloudflare receives "regular requests" from law enforcement not to ban certain sites. "There are lots of competitors to Cloudflare that are not nearly as law abiding as we have always been," he said. "The minute that someone isn't on our network, they're going to be on someone else's network...." Prince also rejected any implication that Cloudflare's position is self-interested. "The right answer from a pure business perspective is just to kick them off," he said of 8chan. "Of the 2 million-plus Cloudflare customers, they don't matter, and the pain that they cause is well beyond anything else."
Keeping 8chan within its network is a "moral obligation", he said, adding: "We, as well as all tech companies, have an obligation to think about how we solve real problems of real human suffering and death. What happened in El Paso is abhorrent in every possible way, and it's ugly, and I hate that there's any association between us and that... For us the question is which is the worse evil? Is the worse evil that we kick the can down the road and don't take responsibility? Or do we get on the phone with people like you and say we need to own up to the fact that the internet is home to many amazing things and many terrible things and we have an absolute moral obligation to deal with that."
UPDATE: 8:25 p.m. PST: Cloudflare's CEO announced that they are in fact terminating 8chan, effective at midnight PST.
Here are his remarks to the Guardian less than 24 hours earlier... "If I could wave a magic wand and make all of the bad things that are on the internet go away -- and I personally would put the Daily Stormer and 8chan in that category of bad things -- I would wave that magic wand tomorrow," [Cloudflare CEO Matthew] Prince said. "It would be the easiest thing in the world and it would feel incredibly good for us to kick 8chan off our network, but I think it would step away from the obligation that we have and cause that community to still exist and be more lawless over time."
Prince argued that keeping "bad" sites within Cloudflare's network means that the company is able to help monitor activity and flag illegal content to law enforcement. While he would not comment on specifics, he said that Cloudflare receives "regular requests" from law enforcement not to ban certain sites. "There are lots of competitors to Cloudflare that are not nearly as law abiding as we have always been," he said. "The minute that someone isn't on our network, they're going to be on someone else's network...." Prince also rejected any implication that Cloudflare's position is self-interested. "The right answer from a pure business perspective is just to kick them off," he said of 8chan. "Of the 2 million-plus Cloudflare customers, they don't matter, and the pain that they cause is well beyond anything else."
Keeping 8chan within its network is a "moral obligation", he said, adding: "We, as well as all tech companies, have an obligation to think about how we solve real problems of real human suffering and death. What happened in El Paso is abhorrent in every possible way, and it's ugly, and I hate that there's any association between us and that... For us the question is which is the worse evil? Is the worse evil that we kick the can down the road and don't take responsibility? Or do we get on the phone with people like you and say we need to own up to the fact that the internet is home to many amazing things and many terrible things and we have an absolute moral obligation to deal with that."
Why would you want to stop this??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shooters are announcing plans ahead of time on a channel and you want to shut it down?
The FBI only missed this last shooter by minutes, why stop letting insane morons announce intentions ahead of time so we can stop them?
We need more outlets for violent idiots to reveal themselves before it's too late, not fewer.
Re:Why would you want to stop this??? (Score:5, Interesting)
We need more outlets for violent idiots to reveal themselves before it's too late, not fewer.
Uh, careful with what you ask for. We reward narcissism in society today, and because of that society is filled with more narcissists than ever. More spotlights are not necessary a good thing. Like we need another dozen methods for nutjobs to live-stream killing sprees or rally copycat behavior? I think not.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean because illegal immigrants are the only way a leftist sees a Hispanic person? Way to paint yourself as a bigot.
Re:Why would you want to stop this??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Aside from the inaccurate claim that the FBI was somehow already on the way and only missed him by minutes, I don't believe you understand the empowering role these forums play.
Re:Why would you want to stop this??? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's the possibility that the shooters actions are dominantly performative rather ideological, in which case one might ask, do I want to participate in the performance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The El Paso shooting is pretty clearly an anti-immigrant attack... by a lone wolf shooter, mind you.
But to be fair, what's the Californian Republican minority leader to do? That's a shit job, trying to spin the shooting up of a Walmart in El Paso as something other than gun violence or a hate crime.
Re:Yeah what could stop psychos getting rifles, NR (Score:5, Interesting)
To be fair, there is a real problem with 4Chan and 8Chan, a real policing problem, completely disrupts. There is just so much bullshit on there, completely lies, made up stories, hyperbole, total nonsense and wall to wall " ". That you can not action any information presented there, as it is far more likely to be empty gob-waffle than reality but sometimes very, very rarely it is.
So all the " " on those sites, attract the rare few individuals that are problematic and because of all the " " it is hard to tell which ones they are but you want them to expose themselves so that you can take action on that exposure prior to an incident.
The mentally disturbed do not act upon the nonsense in 4Chan and 8Chan, they react to corporate main stream media news, they want to be that headline. What 4Chan and 8Chan do is provide authorities a last chance to find them when the expose their intent to get headlines on corporate news media and what attracts those individuals to expose themselves, all the " " and hyperbole, also tends to bury that exposure under all the " " and hyperbole.
Want to bitch at anyone and all of you know this is the truth, blamer for profit news and attracting eyeballs to earn advertiser dollars, corporate greed, selling tickets to the gladiator games in the fight to the death arena of our neighbourhoods. They feel safe in their private compounds with their private security and tough luck for the rest of us. Headlines sell advertising. (" " == trolling stupid lameness filter)
I wouldn't call him a Lone Wolf (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
by a lone wolf shooter
Not really. All those people warping his mind for years on 8chan, getting him to the point where he considers mass murder the right thing to do, are his accomplices.
How does law enforcement stop them? (Score:3)
One thing we could do is start taking guns away much like we take drivers licenses away from drunk drivers. e.g. you do something crazy you're guns are taken away until a court date where you have to prove you're not a nut, but I can't imagine getting that through....
I keep thinking of this [duckduckgo.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Shooters are announcing plans ahead of time on a channel
Right after one of the shootings I noticed a longtime slashdot reader posted on their twitter account a denial, informing the world that they were not the shooter.
I mean, if it is a slashdot user and they're at the event, you do have to wonder! Your family is gonna be on the internet, hoping it wasn't you, so make sure to post something! LMFAO
I love you, slashdot.
Re:Why would you want to stop this??? (Score:4, Informative)
Shooters are announcing plans ahead of time on a channel and you want to shut it down?
Yes. Despite what you think this isn't some cool source of news. This is a cesspool of internet toughguys who say they will do things on a daily basis and rarely actually follow through. It's signal to noise ratio is atrocious and the lead time is pointless from a response point of view.
What it is however is a popularity contest. Those people announcing they are going to do something on 8chan do it for the kicks, they do it for the audience, and they expect to be egged on. Likewise they become famous and others feel they need the fame as well. It's called peer pressure and it works exceptionally well on delusional extremists with a mental problem.
Yes you definitely want to shut shit like that down. The FBI will gain nothing from using it as a honeypot.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Leave it to SuperIncel to defend a forum that mainstreams these idiots and lets them plan and celebrate these kinds of incidents.
Calling 8chan "mainstream" is pretty much Peak Stupidity.
Peak Stupidity??? (Score:2)
My friend, I think you've underestimated some future contestants in the stupid game.
How is 8chan "mainstream" (Score:3, Insightful)
defend a forum that mainstreams these idiots
How is 8chan "mainstream" in any way? Hell it's four beyond even *4chan*!!
It's merely leaving a channel open that can be used to tune into the fringe thoughts that exist.
You seek to eliminate the channel, thinking it will eliminate the fringe thoughts themselves - has that ever worked? No, it has not.
Why not use that channel to monitor and find the truly evil among the fringe, instead of hiding your head in the sand and hoping evil goes away because your head is
Only Love can save you now (Score:3, Insightful)
DEATH TO THESE NAZI SCUMBAGS, ONE BY ONE. A PROUD AMERICAN TRADITION IS COMING BACK.
Ken Doll is job 1.
What would be really curious to see is, how do you distinguish yourself from the shooter in any way?
There's no distinction as far as I can see. Should that not make you pause and reflect?
Hard left and hard right wrap around to collide at one point of burning hatred, a mix of ideology and madness that finds death as a reasonable and "right" solution to all problems. I reject your death cult sir, and in fac
Re: (Score:2)
If nature and evolution used that we would still be floating around in the ocean as organic soup. We fight, we bite, we kill. We evolve, the fittest survive and spread their genetic legacy, the weak die and their defective genetic code ends with them. Everything on this planet follows that philosophy, or dies trying. Take your love crap and shove it up your ass... although you probably already have. And as the old saying goes, push comes to shove comes to sh
Re:Um, read the news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Logic fails you, the linked article clearly states the manifesto caught the attention of the FBI. The article clearly states the FBI started to take action to determine author. In this particular case it was too late as in minutes before BUT a future crime could have adequate forewarning.
We don't need your kind of censorship, would accomplish nothing. The shooter would have shot with or without 8chan.
Re: (Score:3)
So I did (take a look)
What a shit site, crap design, crap everything, maybe it grows on you... like fungus.
Anyways, if 8chan wasn't there the nut jobs would just find somewhere else to congregate. I bet most of the hard core have already left after all this publicity anyway.
It's just is another reminder how other races can hate white people publicly, but white people can't hate anyone.
Re:Um, read the news? (Score:4, Informative)
The shooter would have shot with or without 8chan.
He posted it to 8chan because that's where he was radicalized, and that's where he expected to be praised afterwards. Previous mass murderers have become legends and memes on 8chan, regularly referenced and held up as people at the top of their "game", a target to beat.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong, he wasn't "radicalized" because of any forum. The world doesn't work the way you think it does. There will be more like that person with or without any forum.
Re: (Score:3)
I do know that. There will be more "mass shootings" without 8chan. Not a single domestic terrorist was created because of 8chan. You'll see, there will be more of that type no matter what sights are shut down. It's a meme, claiming so-and-so was "radicalized" because of this or that site.
Re: (Score:2)
What happened to America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What happened to America (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe it is in the motivation area we need to work, people need a purpose and stability. We have a issue with the family unit not being what it used to be and so many young people kill themselves or in this case worse. I know people will blame video games and movies (which I am not saying one way or the other on) but we really need influence to do the right thing. Taking away any influence to do wrong cannot solve the issue. Modern society has removed God, morals and the family unit then complains that society is breaking down perhaps think back to what was holding society together.
Re: (Score:3)
Although you might say he's approaching [twitter.com] cranky old man syndrome [twitter.com].
Re: (Score:3)
There is a lot of gun debate people who think that disarming will be effective
Disclaimer: I am from an eastern-European country which has very strict gun control. I never touched a gun in my life, last time I saw one (except for police pea shooters) was back in 1996 at a neighbor who was a hunter (he had a couple hunting rifles).
Disarming in the USA is impossible. You're over 100 years late for that to happen effectively.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm from the USA. I've never touched a gun in my life, and I don't even recall if I've seen one in person except on police (probably have and it just wasn't memorable, but it's not frequent either).
I've never seen a mass shooting either (or any kind of shooting, though I've heard plenty of distant gunshots in the forest).
It's a big country.
Re:What happened to America (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, considering that the 2nd Amendment exists, and it would take another Amendment to change it, it is about as likely as convincing Deists to stop believing in their Deity. It is an absurd thing to ask for, and it will offend the people you're asking. They don't agree, and they don't want to talk about it.
The prospect of "disarming" Americans is just flamebait to get conservatives riled up. The only thing that Americans ask for regarding "gun control" is minor limitations on specific new equipment sold, and new paperwork requirements for sales. No disarming, just very minor regulation of new sales.
Re: (Score:2)
The second amendment of the US constitution is vaguely worded. The supreme court didn't rule that it applied to personal ownership until 2008. Reversing that decision would suffice, no repeal necessary.
Re: (Score:3)
The way I read it these killings were done by, according to the NRA's interpretation: "A well regulated militia".
It will take a different Supreme Court to properly interpret those words.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>"No disarming, just very minor regulation of new sales."
And yet that is NOT what certain politicians and parties are seeking and pushing harder than ever. Many have even outright said they WANT the model of Australia or Britain! So let's not pretend that there is no real threat by many existing and potential politicans.
"Gun free zones" are not a minor regulation. Tiny magazines are not a minor regulation. "Government permission slips based on their whim" for a Constitutional right is also no
Re: (Score:3)
>"Oh, bull fucking shit, you're just another right winger lying about what Democrats proposed"
Oh right. That must be it.
Cory Booker: Proposed "a [mandatory] federal government buyback program." Things all gun owners should get permission (license) from Fed.
Eric Swalwell: Supports the confiscation of whatever guns Congress decides to call "assault weapons." Joked about nuking Americans who don't want to turn over their guns to the Fed.
Julian Castro: told The New York Times that if he had his way "peo
Re: (Score:3)
It worked in Australia. On the other hand, Australia is a civilized country.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Preventing this type of speech is not anti free-speech, anymore than gun control is anti-gun. These rights we have are not absolute, since they can infringe upon others people's rights. Speech that advocates for the killing of others has no protection.
Re:What happened to America (Score:5, Insightful)
These rights we have are not absolute, since they can infringe upon others people's rights.
This is a dangerous statement, because you don't define the "other people's rights" that are more important than free speech. Free speech is one of the fundamental pillars of a free society. While I agree that some speech should not be free, I think the cases where it it must be suppressed are very limited and must be very clearly and narrowly defined. Otherwise it's too easy to invoke "other people's rights" as a blunt instrument for blocking free speech about any subject you want suppressed.
This is not a theoretical argument: it's happening in America at this time. Imaginary or overrated rights are used to suppress free speech - for example, the "right to not be offended" - wielded by all sides of the political spectrum - is a favorite tool for advancing censorship.
I'm really concerned about this evolution. I know first hand how important free speech is for a healthy democratic society, because I have lived in a country where free speech was forbidden. The fact that people born with the right to free speech are so dismissive of it is, IMO, a major failure of the American educational system.
Re:What happened to America (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't any thing in the constitution defining free speech as more important than the other rights enumerated. The rights I'm talking about are rights to life, and rights to avoid violence from others. Speech can and is used to incite violence. If someone encourages another to commit murder, then both are culpable under the law. The law also sees slander as illegal, despite the 1st amendment, and historically this has been true since the ink on the constitution was new.
The evolution I see is a movement away from the historical understanding of free speech towards one where anything should be allowed; doxxing, bomb threats, swatting, etc, I've seen people defend all of that as free speech.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why not go with the ideal exemplar case of your thesis, a country not simply with a higher percentage of atheists, but a whole country that is -officially- atheist, and -officially- proceeds in its actions from an atheist worldview? A b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I rember when Reddit banned the fat shamming subreddits. Banning the subreddits didn't prevent toxic comments on Reddit it just changed from being concentrated on one subreddit to being spread throughout Reddit. A ban would also be more likely to lead to further radicalization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater is the classic example, because it's dangerous.
This legal example may be the most often misused, like you misused it here. You are making the argument, "We limit speech in some cases, therefore we should limit it in the particular case I want to limit it." No, that's not how it works. The default case is "speech is free."
Radicalizing dumb teen boys is even more dangerous.
Oh, radicalizing is dangerous, is it? Who gets to decide what is radical? You?
Are you one of those people who learned nothing from the last century?
Re:What happened to America (Score:5, Insightful)
If they're not publishers then they don't have any right to choose what is posted since they're a metaphorical town square.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If private social media companies are publishers, then they have the responsibility to vet literally everything posted on their site.
If they're not publishers then they don't have any right to choose what is posted since they're a metaphorical town square.
That goes double for freaking Cloud Flare. They're no more "hosting the content" than your ISP is.
It's beyond time for congress to act to defend effective freedom of speech by forcing corporations to decide between publisher and platform. (And no, I don't care at all about the "rights" of a publicly held corporation.)
That's incorrect (Score:3)
It's true that there are several right wing pundits and politicians who want to repeal or amend the CDA to remove those protections (most notably president Trump who would like to sue Facebook and Google for what their user's post).
It's ironic, because the right wing while attacking tech companies for failing to adhere to the principles of free speech are actively seeking a tool that
Re:That's incorrect (Score:4, Insightful)
"It's true that there are several right wing pundits and politicians who want to repeal or amend the CDA to remove those protections (most notably president Trump who would like to sue Facebook and Google for what their user's post). "
Not true.
Facebook and Google started as platforms and were protected as such. Since then they have been editing content, blocking content and deplatforming users based on their 'opinions' of acceptable content. They are now little different from newspapers with users providing the content instead of reporters. This is their right, but this makes them publishers and CDA 230 is there to protect platforms not publishers.
Wordsmith indeed! (Score:2)
Beepsky's "metaphorical town square" seemed untouchable, and then you crushed it with "retard oversimplicist". Well played coward, well played.
Re:What happened to America (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What happened to America (Score:4, Interesting)
This has nothing to do with free speech. This has to do with a private company choosing what to publish and what not to publish.
It has everything to do with free speech. Free Speech is philosophical principle which states that people should be allowed to speak their minds without fear of being persecuted. We have it enshrined in our Constitution in order to prevent the Government from doing it.
Cloudfare isn't a publisher. They're a hosting provider, and if they want to be a Neutral provider as opposed to pushing an Agenda, they will host any and all Legal content. And if you believe in the idea of an open and free Internet, you will support them in their stance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Hate speech (however you might define something like that) is most certainly protected speech in the US. You can argue the merits of that but that is reality."
+1
And, thus, the definitions are SO important. "Threat speech" is not at all legal- speech that targets action of [actual, physical] violence. "Hate speech"- well, that depends on every individual's definition of "hate." You can't legislate that, at least not without immediately violating the first amendment. Private platforms can, but not if
Re: (Score:3)
I would most certainly think that speech advocating genocide, ethnic cleansing, or just random wholesale violence, directed towards gullible and easily influenced listeners would count as speech that could legally be curtailed.
In America, the answer is no, speech cannot be legally curtailed based on content.
Any attempt to censor an idea or concept is illegal. I oppose genocide but freedom of speech is important.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, inciting a riot is against the law, and that isn't even controversial.
A long list of fraud-related laws make certain speech illegal based on content.
Stop spewing ignorant, over-simplified AM-radio-style talking points, this is slashdot. Put on your thinking cap.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, inciting a riot is against the law, and that isn't even controversial.
So if I tell you, "AIGheararch, you should go riot with me." Did I just break the law?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in American, speech CAN be curtailed based on content. That's what slander and libel are. The courts aren't agreeing with you, and neither is the historical understanding of the first amendment.
Re: What happened to America (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that some countries have issued travel warnings about the USA based on its endemic violence.
I don't know that, but apparently there are some rather hilarious travel warnings for visiting the US [mentalfloss.com]. Stand in line and take care of trees and flowers. Watch out for ripoff gas stations in Florida.
Publisher vs Platform (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shooters ranted on Facebook countless times. Remove that, and they will rant elsewhere. Remove that and they will rand else-elsewhere. And so on.
And if you somehow magically ban them from ranting everywhere, do you think they would (also magically) no longer put their intentions into practice?
This is a knee-jerk reaction and look at the problem the wrong way. Instead of analyzing what prompted those shooters to do it and try to minimize the cause(s), all we discuss is whether this or that social media platf
Re: (Score:2)
Crazy people have always ranted. The big difference with the Net is that these people's ideas are amplified and magnified. The number of crazy people murdering lots of people has definitely gone up since the Net
Blatant double standard (Score:3, Insightful)
But when you have a white guy who went on a shooting spree, who posted once on a website that liberals don't like, the solution is "shut down the whole website and lock up the people who ran it".
Re: (Score:3)
No, the difference is that when a white guy goes on a shooting spree, who posted once on a website then people like you claim that "liberals wants to shut down the whole website and lock up the people who ran it" without any evidence what so ever.
There is nothing at all in the guardian article even close to demanding 8chan to be shut down, less so about locking people up. In the second article they cite 4chan:s creator Fredrick Brennan as saying "On Sunday, Brennan said the site should be shut down, telling
Re:Blatant double standard (Score:4, Informative)
No-one is saying 8chan should be shut down or the operators arrested here. You made that up to suit your persecution narrative.
Cloudflare is merely withdrawing its services form the site.
On the other hand, conservatives regularly call for Facebook and Twitter and Google to be broken up or shut down because they don't ban Antifa or because they do ban the far right.
Re: (Score:2)
How 8 chan it "linked" to the shooting? (Score:5, Interesting)
If the shooter posted a manifesto here on Slashdot, would it, or would it not, be "inked" to the shooting? If they share a manifesto on Google Docs (as terrorists often do, by Google's own admission), is Google "linked" to the shooting?
Re:How 8 chan it "linked" to the shooting? (Score:5, Funny)
Have you been browsing at "-1"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
My point exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Difference is, browsing 8chan is permanently at -1.
I'm a liberal, I do not want it taken down (Score:2)
I did not read his manifesto, and that is part of freedom of speech - nobody is guaranteed an audience. If his manifesto did not itself break the law then he should have been allowed to post it. We know that we had mass shootings befo
Cloudfare is vile. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Post a cloudflare hosted website whose purpose is distributing child porn.
Because I'm pretty darn sure any websites aspiring to do that on the clearnet get shut down hard and fast.
So I'll wait for you to prove it...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He did, he's providing a platform and isn't passing the problem on. Now what are you going to do about CNN, Fox and others spewing divisions in one way or the other day-in-and-out.
You're not going to solve it winning an election, you have to have concrete and actionable answers. Having a better economy is one thing, making people feel safer in their own towns and cities is also a thing, having people feel like they have a chance at defending themselves in these situations, armed guards or police in schools
Re:Finish explaining how you're dealing with it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally people are safer then in many years. The problem is that fear sells so you have private enterprises (Amazon Ring and such) pushing fear, you have media of all types pushing fear to sell eyeballs, you have police departments pushing fear for bigger budgets and you have politicians pushing fear for more votes.
Rational speech doesn't offset that fear, censorship is a cure worse then the disease. There doesn't really seem like there's any good solutions as fear is just too easy to feed.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm going to assume English is your third language and leave the syntax of that sentence alone.
So long as you define "people" as "White Citizens w/ Money" you are correct. Alas, if you acknowledge that there are many more kinds of people than that, then your claim becomes quite ludicrous indeed. I especially love how you say Police are "pushing fear." I mean they are, but not in quite the way you seem to mean it, unless of course you are referring to shooting
Re: (Score:2)
Murder rate broken down into white and black groups, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] note that the black rate dropped much more.
Property crimes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's hard to find accurate statistics on police shootings, places like Oklahoma misreport 100% of police shootings for example. They are being forced to be more honest due to being filmed and such. In the past it was much easier to get away with shooting someone, planting drugs, bragging in private and being members of the KKK and
Re: (Score:2)
You make good points. I still maintain that it is fear that is causing the feedback that is making things worse and what to do about that fear, I have no idea. Making people feel safe doesn't work as people are or were getting safer while becoming more fearful. Trump fans that fear, the media repeats it for profit. Trump got elected due to the free media coverage, he should have been ignored.
Re:Finish explaining how you're dealing with it. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Las Vegas shooting at the country music concert was perhaps the epitome of this imbalance, he was shooting into a crowd with a jury rigged machine gun from an elevated position in a hotel, and even though there were plenty of guns on the ground level they little good since they couldn't realistically start blindly shooting into the side of a hotel unless they were willing to kill even more innocent bystanders.
You can't realistically secure everywhere where people will congregate from an heavily armed populace like in America, and eliminationist ideologies are even more easily spread by the internet so there are going to be plenty more opportunities for stochastic terrorism to pop up out of nowhere. If we take the maximalist libertarian position on guns and violent speech, then consequence will be that we'll continue to have this continual chain of these mass murders and that feeling safe is a delusion. Either we need to accept that cost in blood for those freedoms or decide otherwise and put in some more restrictions, thoughts and prayers will accomplish nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
That may solve the problem of mass shootings but then there are the nut jobs in China running around with knives stabbing people. Most of these people are just nut jobs looking for their five seconds of fame. Stop giving them the five seconds and more than likely they will stop shooting people. But I sup
Re: (Score:2)
I think Jim Jeffries said it best, and I'm paraphrasing here...
That may solve the problem of mass shootings but then there are the nut jobs in China running around with knives stabbing people. Most of these people are just nut jobs looking for their five seconds of fame. Stop giving them the five seconds and more than likely they will stop shooting people. But I suppose bad news sells better than puppies.
Great, but much harder to lethally stab 20 odd people and stab 50 people total. Someone will grab a nearby heavy object to fend you off (or at least keep you at more than arms length distance). Taking away guns isn't to stop all violence, where there is a will something can happen. It is about doing what you can to limit the damage.
The problem is people think that if we take away guns we ONLY do that. No we do that AND all other things to limit the damage (because not making them famous won't stop all hate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People need to use knives in their daily lives, but far fewer need to use guns, and the mortality risk of a mass knife attack is not really comparable to
Re:Finish explaining how you're dealing with it. (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Either we need to accept that cost in blood for those freedoms or decide otherwise and put in some more restrictions"
People incorrectly believe there is a tremendous amount of death from "mass shootings" and there isn't. One is probably 10,000 times more likely to die in a car accident or die being struck by lightning. The simple fact is that there *is* a price for living an a free society. We can't have extreme safety in a free country, especially one as large and diverse as the USA. They are utterly incompatible.
And these "more restrictions" as your possible alternative-
1) Will such restrictions affect primarily the bad people- those who rarely acquire, carry, or use LEGALLY? Or will they mostly affect the good people, instead?
2) Where do the restrictions stop? How much restriction is enough on a Constitutionally assured right?
3) How are these restrictions actually going to make us safer without limiting the ability of good people to protect themselves, their loved ones, and possibly others? What type of deterrence is lost in the process?
Some things for readers to ponder:
There are good estimates of between 1 and 2.5 MILLION defensive gun uses by good people, legally, in the USA, every year, which stop actual crime. And the super majority are without a shot ever fired. This doesn't even count generic deterrence, which is impossible to compute.
Concealed carry permit holding citizens commit 700% fewer felonies than even police officers, the people that most of society believes are the âoebestâ people to carry firearms.
77% of all violent crime occurs in public places. Almost all âoemass shootingsâ have occurred in so-called âoegun-freeâ zones, where law-abiding citizens are not allowed to be armed.
75% of felons admit to avoiding breaking into occupied houses for fear of being shot. Most criminals are far more worried about running into an armed victim than running into the police.
60% of all American âoegun deathsâ are suicides, not violent crime against other people.
Re:Finish explaining how you're dealing with it. (Score:5, Informative)
Mass shootings are a symptom of a deeper problem.
At a recent rally, Trump asked the crowd what could be done about illegal immigrants. Someone shouted "shoot them". Trump's response was "you can only say that in the pan handle".
He should have had the guy thrown out and then lectured the crowd about how murder is not acceptable. Every time he does this, it normalzies that kind of sentiment. He's far from the only one, lots of other politicians and of course Fox News are doing it too.
You can keep trying to what-about your way to ignoring this problem, but as a conservative you might want to do something about it because it makes you look bad. I would say "do it for your country" but you don't seem to really care what kind of a shit-hole it becomes.
Re:Finish explaining how you're dealing with it. (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Mass shootings are a symptom of a deeper problem."
Indeed it is. An education system that is failing and teaching this country is "bad" and everyone is a victim. A media whose agenda seems to be to sensationalize everything to death. A healthcare climate that puts ever more people, especially children and teens, on mind-altering drugs with little concern about the side-effects. The deteriorating "family" where each generation has less parental support, guidance, positive role models, and moral compasses, makes everything much worse.
>"He should have had the guy thrown out and then lectured the crowd about how murder is not acceptable."
100% agreed. His response was obviously a joke, but it was in poor taste and inappropriate.
>"You can keep trying to what-about your way to ignoring this problem"
Refusing to blame "guns" for an underlying problem isn't ignoring anything. It is just admitting that the so-called "solutions" the left are pushing are not effective and do more harm than good. All rational discussion and statistical information backs that up.
>"but as a conservative you might want to do something about it because it makes you look bad."
I have about as much control as you do... which is... very little. I do what I can.
>" I would say "do it for your country" but you don't seem to really care what kind of a shit-hole it becomes."
You couldn't be further from the truth. Just because I don't want to enact draconian gun-control, because I know it will make the problem WORSE, not better, doesn't mean I don't care about the country. And saying something like that to me is exactly the type of off-the-rails attitude that set people against each other.
Re: (Score:3)
I have about as much control as you do... which is... very little. I do what I can.
Sure you do. Don't support people like Trump and others who fail to act responsibly. Oppose him for 2020, and if your local local politicians are saying or failing to say the same stuff then drop support for them too. Go to the town hall meetings and call them out, call them out on Twitter. Call other conservatives out when they do it.
They only behave that way because it plays to the grass roots, i.e. people like you. If the grass roots tells them it's unacceptable, they will stop or be replaced.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Good posting. Thoughtful, rational, and polite.... and from an "Anonymous"! Makes me think I am in the Twilight Zone.
Anyway, the problem with "universal licensing"/"universal background checks" is that to enforce it, it means creating a de-facto gun registry. This is extraordinarily dangerous to liberty (as can be seen time-after-time in other countries) and why so many oppose it. It has almost always led, later, to confiscation schemes.
And, back to reality, we are not going to get criminals and bad peop
Re: Finish explaining how you're dealing with it. (Score:2)
The majority of posts on forums like 8chan etc. are just troll posts, so you need to figure out the few real ones first.
But in most cases the real true posts on those forums aren't harmful, they are just unfiltered reality from a subjective view.
The major problem is instead ordinary news media that publishes the name and picture of the culprit, which gives other people ideas for their 15 minutes of fame.
See the anonymous message boards as channels of unfiltered reality and a source for information that can
Re: (Score:2)
People should be reminded of the 21st amendment. Sometimes we make stupid amendments.
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity - in its entirety - is 100% proven to be the most vile, disgusting, pathetic, TRASH DNA that evolution has created.
Oh, but let's not "condemn the whole program", right?
(If my eyes rolled any harder, I'd be blind.)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, you are using IMHO too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Internet (WWW) was created for helping advancement of humanity
First of all, the Internet is a lot more than the web (WWW). And it was created by DARPA, to facilitate communications and resource sharing between Defense Department contractors and researchers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mein Kampf 'proved' printing press is 'evil' (Score:4, Insightful)
Early on in the rise of the Nazis in Germany, perhaps it would have been good to shut a few printing presses down. Just like, perhaps, shutting a few websites down.
That's exactly how Hitler rose to power in the party! His job was to shut down a few outlets opposed to his party, to help them win. Being the guy who could "shut down a few presses" is why he rose to power in the Nazi party.
Maybe read a little history?
Hitler rose to power because the economy sucked (Score:3, Insightful)
I've said this elsewhere, but given that we're not going to take away guns from lunatics the best thing is to vote to mitigate the problem. That means Medicare for All, a $15/hr minimum wage, a large scale federal jobs program (the "Green" New Deal, yes, it's really just a jobs program in disguise), legalizing weed & ending the endless wars. It would be nice if we'd stop dest
Re: (Score:3)
Please actually read some history? Hitler was a minor player during most of the rise of the National Socialist Party to power. He was fresh out of jail, and an embarrassment to the party, and their association was kept very low key, at first. But he ran all the party's muscle, and one day he just told the party leadership "I'm in charge now, who says I'm not?"
The Nazi Party got votes because it promised a wide socialist platform, restoration of order, and German pride. It was not in the least a party of
Re: (Score:2)
"Leading Nazis, such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted by the Weimar Republic for their anti-Semetic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. But those court cases served as an effective public-relations machinery for his efforts. The more charges he faced, the greated became the admiration