Since this thread has turned into a shit show tonight, why not? When is the last time you flew anywhere? Nearly all of the TSA agents I encounter on a regular basis are white. I'm not sure i can take pictures of them next week when I fly to KC, but if you insist I'll give it a shot (no pun intended) Edit: you know what? Fuck all of you. I nearly wasted valuable sleep time looking up the demographic breakdown of TSA employees. If you're going to claim that they are all, or mostly, black, then post the links to prove it. I don't have to prove a negative. You make a claim, then back it up. edit, edit: If you have bothered to pay any attention to what is going on down here in the continental U.S. are you seriously getting on Angels case for pointing that out? Seriously? Are you for real?
Nobody said that they were all black, Misanthropic. I doubt you'd see many black TSA agents down where I am (or any black people at all). For the record, having to deal with shitheels like TSA agents is one of the many reasons why I avoid air travel. However, here's an interesting article about the TSA. (I know that Cracked.com isn't a pinnacle of journalism, but if even half of that article is true, that's pretty bad.) http://www.cracked.com/personal-exp...ictures-your-junk-8-realities-inside-tsa.html
It was fairly recent that Canada dragged a trial out for two years deciding whether or not to throw a guy in prison for disagreeing with a feminist on twitter, banning him from his career in the meantime. Yeah, other countries do stupid shit too and I really don't see the point in so lazily applying a story to the entire US, especially if you are going to choose one that quite obviously had such widespread condemnation. They're a bit worse than 'not the pinnacle'. One of their recent stories was about how porn is racist because there are more ebony internet searches in Mississippi than Iowa. It seems like they used to at least somewhat research their articles, but these days they just publish complete nonsense. Regarding bombs the answer is here: http://blog.tsa.gov/ The TSA isn't great or anything, but like most cracked articles these days that guy is just publishing bullshit.
I can never tell if you're trolling or not. Comparing a case that played out in the courts* to determine whether or not online harassment is a valid form of threat (and thereby allowing the judicial system to work in its imperfect way), to passing a law that not only allows an entire demographic to be discriminated against but ALSO forbids any other court in the state from passing laws protecting them is ridiculous. Where do we draw the line between personal freedom and codified protection from the state? This question gets deliberately obfuscated by people with an agenda. It's simple. - You codify protection of people who are being harmed/discriminated against based on issues they have no control over. I can control if I wave a Nazi flag in public. I cannot control if I'm black or gay. This might mean you are protecting a group you morally despise. That's okay. That's a free society where we all have some chance at the pie. I intensely dislike everything the Westboro Baptist Church has ever done; provided they are within the rules of the law with their actions, though, they have a right to do it. You draw the line in the sand if/when another's actions are harming someone else. It offends me to see a "No niggers" flag being waved in public. It does not harm me, though. Now if the group of people waving that flag congregate around a black youth camp and target their aggression towards the children in the camp? Very different story. This is simple. Not easy, but simple. And as for shitting all over the US, I agree that we should all keep it civil. It's tempting sometimes to make blanket comparisons, though, when you look at Canada's recent election and its results compared to what is happening in the US. One always hopes that the elected officials of a particular party represent the best and most idealistic examples of the people within that party. Do I like Justin Trudeau? Not even a bit - IMO he's a child who's never had a job and inherited the position because of his surname, who isn't as smart as his father. However. He has also taken the position, presented an excellent face to the rest of the world, unleashed all the scientists and environmentalists who were cloistered in Harper's government and made a very deliberate point of appointing the correct people to his cabinet. When asked why it was 50% women, he shrugged and said, "It's 2016." So a scientist is the Minister of Science, and a soldier is a Minister of War, etc. Contrast that with the debacle that's happening in the US, both within the election and in terms of race relations/inclusivity within the country. It is both scary and sad. And, I personally feel, not a reflection of Americans. *The case actually had merit as it relates to online harassment. A women who worked as a lobbyist and is a noted feminist had a game made about her where players got to punch her face until it was bruised beyond recognition. Her online accounts where then flooded to the point of paralysis by a small group of trolls. Is this "harmful" to her, as laid out by the Carter? Personally, if I was targeted to the degree that she was and strangers were beating my effigy black and blue, I would at the very least be highly uncomfortable. The courts were tasked with drawing the line in the sand between his right to troll her accounts with vaguely threatening language and actions, and her right to feel secure online.
For the record I never said they are mostly black, I said their hiring is not in line with our country's population demographic. From: https://www.tsa.gov/news/releases/2011/02/03/tsa-recognized-diversity As of 2011, the TSA workforce is made up of approximately 21 percent African Americans; nearly 15 percent Hispanics and just over 6 percent of other ethnicities, including American Indian, Asian, Native Hawaiian and others.
Basically you and I said the same thing, we just have a different definition of what is harmful. Truthfully, I could give a shit on this matter because it doesn't really effect me. However, I have been around plenty of the ultra conservative religious folks and while their ideas may be somewhat archaic, they are not vengeful, hate filled, lunatics. At least for the most part. Shouldn't they be allowed to practice their religion as long as it doesn't harm anyone? Are hurt feelings actual harm? You brought up WBC and the fact that while they are offensive as hell, they should be allowed to protest and demonstrate as long as no one is harmed. Has the WBC hurt people's feelings? Absolutely. Once again, are hurt feelings harm? Also if you read HB 757 there is this: "...so as to provide that religious officials shall not be required to perform marriage ceremonies in violation of their legal right to free exercise of religion" Should clergy be by forced by law to perform weddings that go against what they believe is a tenent of their faith? The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Should clergy be forced to? No, not at all. Should the state issue marriage licenses to any two consenting adults wishing to marry? Yes. The difference is whether we're talking about private institutions or state institutions. The laws of the land should be inclusive; people can choose their actions within those laws to suit their personal moral codes. The question of hurt feelings is an interesting one, and one where I think the courts are justifiably involved. Should "hurting someone's feelings" be in any way illegal? Nope. However, a line can get crossed that moves from "hurting feelings" into either "harassment" or "threatening." Unlike my simplistic answer previously, this line is not easily seen. In the case that Kampf brought up, imagine two scenarios: 1. Troll says to feminist, "You're an idiot and I'm going to beat the shit out of you after work Thursday night." 2. Troll says to feminist, "LOL bitch." And posts a link to a picture of her that's been altered to show her beaten badly. The first one is clearly harassment and threat. But, is the second? The courts ruled no. I think the argument had a measure of validity, though.
I think one of the reasons that the discussion is worth having is that, no (imo), the clergy should not be forced by law to do so. However, the same clergy also enjoy special tax exemptions because of their position / license to perform marriages. If a particular church is treated more like a private club that can have whatever rules it wants, and not bound by the law, then does it have to give up other protection / exemptions afforded under the law? There are other cases of duality though. Say a public schools is allowed to enact a dress code that prohibits wearing hats, but at the same time yarmulkes or turbans are allowed. I know some clergy who do not hate gay people, but at the same time are conflicted about gay marriage. There is certainly racist / homophobic / hurtful speech coming from people who claim to religious, but not everyone who is opposed to gay marriage in the church does so with hate in their heart.
You can't tell if I'm trolling? Holy shit DCC, you're actually defending that case? Have you read anything about it? For starters writing harassing comments online isn't a reason to throw somebody in prison. You have to be fucking insane to think that someone deserves to spend serious time in jail for saying something mean online. That's beyond fucked up. Secondly, his comments didn't even approach anything that could be considered harassment. He didn't make the game about punching her in the face, which is hardly criminal anyway, WAS ABOUT A DIFFERENT FEMINIST, NOT EVEN THE DEFENDANT, and there is a similar game about Justin Bieber. Elliot's comments were tweets that amounted to criticism, there wasn't even a single threat in any of them. As far as trolls sending her tweets, e-mails and whatnot that's hardly criminal, nor does it make any sense to hold Elliot responsible for what other people do. Typically when you preach retarded nonsense to as large an audience as possible, like most feminists do these days, there's a bit of backlash. Even so, she did the same thing several times to different people, except she didn't stop online. No, she had people call their employers trying to get them fired, calling their cell phone, etc. The really ironic thing about the case was any accusation she made, she had already done that and much worse. There wasn't any case to be made against him whatsoever. No threats as the investigating officer originally determined, but it still went to trial because feminists can't take criticism or something. That case was a complete fucking embarrassment for your country. If you can't see that even, then ok, I can see why you stick your nose up at the United States. I thought what happened in Georgia was awful, but even that doesn't compare to ruining someone's livelihood, dragging them through a financially ruinous legal proceeding that took years(when the case shouldn't have even lasted 5 minutes) and then almost throwing them in prison for exercising free speech, but that's just good ole American craziness I guess. Being an offended twat not only gives you the right to get people fired now, it's ok to put them in prison, bankrupt them, and ruin the rest of their life too? Holy fucking shit. We're actually going to argue about this? Edit: Sorry that this was kind of a bitchy/argumentative post. I'm just in awe at the position you're taking. Try a different source about the case instead feministsfornazirule.com or where ever the hell you initially heard about it.
I pulled my summary of it from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Elliott Not any great bastion of journalism, I grant you, but not quite the extremes that you're on about. And my comments are that the judicial system did its job; the line between what constitutes threats/harassment isn't always as clear as it could be. Hence the rulings. And, by the way, he was cleared of the charges* The women claimed that his making (what amount to) avatars of them and allowing people to beat and bruise the avatar as part of a game, without their consent, was threatening. Whether or not the women or the defendant were acting correctly, I think the question of "what constitutes online harassment" is a valid one. And one that's apt to be different case-by-case. The problems come when the Crown selects a bad case to take to trial. This was seen today in the whole Ghomeshi scandal. In both circumstances, I believe the actions of the accused were in bad taste, crossed boundaries and in some way traumatized the victims. However, feelings do not a court case make. The Crown brought forth charges and witnesses that ultimately failed to form coherent testimony or eliminate reasonable doubt. The problem with both cases it that, in the future, when a person is legitimately threatened/attacked (either in person or online), it's going to be that much harder for victims to trust the system and for the public to not be biased against the accusers. *The downside of our system, as I've learned bitterly through personal experience in the last year, is that anyone can sue anybody over anything. People can lie and make up a bunch of nonsense bullshit. The case can be so outrageous that the lawyers look at it and say, "This is ridiculous." None of that matters; you're allowed your day in court. It is ungodly stressful and I wouldn't wish it on anyone...I truly believe that a false accusation is waaaay more stressful than a legitimate accusation would be. The other side is this: I've lived in countries where there was not judicial system. None that mattered, anyway. I've seen a man get dragged through his village and stoned to death after being caught stealing chickens. You had to step around his body when you got off the bus that day. So, as stressful and unfair as it is for the people enduring the trial, it's the best system we can come up with. If I could invent something that protected the public and justly punished actual offenders, I would. That perfection does not exist, and we're stuck with what we have. Which is way better than most of the rest of the world.
According to that link, Elliott wasn't the one who made the game, it was someone named Spurr, who made it about Anita Sarkeesian. Stephanie Guthrie made trouble for Spurr trying to out him to his employer and community. When Elliott decried her actions and got into a twitter fight with her and a couple other folks, that is where the harrassment charges came out. The charges were dismissed because none of his tweets were threatening to them. Not trying to take away from your point about the courts having to interpret online threats, just clarifying the details of the case.
Thanks for that - it's unclear to me if the woman and lawyer who had their likeness used in the game were named as accusers in the lawsuit.
The case most definitely was the extremes I'm talking about. Like I said, he didn't actually go to prison. With that in mind, you think it's all ok because he was cleared of charges? So you wouldn't mind not only being barred from your career for years, but having to rack up a 6 figure legal debt in the meantime? As long as you were eventually cleared it's fine. Wazzaproblem? Like I said in my post too, the avatar was not even the defendant and he isn't the one who even made the game. How the fuck would that be criminal anyway? I'm not even sure what your point is supposed to be. Being mean shouldn't be a crime. I would get your defense of the case if he threatened to kill or rape her. I'm not sure even that would necessarily constitute a multi-year proceeding, but it would at least be something. Th fact that it's a valid question in no way justifies the case. When there is zero evidence whatsoever of harassment or threats there's no reason for court orders banning people from anything, let alone dragging it out so long. The legal system isn't perfect is a pretty fucking awful excuse if you ask me. What makes the case really bad is all the evidence was laid out right in front of them. It's not like it was he said/she said issue. The case was a miscarriage of justice by any civilized standard. If you think financially ruining people and getting them fired is ok because we need answers to very easily answered questions that's pretty fucked up.
Two things are happening right now: I'm arguing about a broader issue, and you're focusing on one particular case. The questions, "Does someone have the right to use your likeness in a threatening way?" or, "Does online trolling constitute harassment?" are both valid things for our legal system to address, in my opinion. Just look at the instances of online bullying that result in kids committing suicide. We're at a stage legally right now where the laws have not kept pace with the technology. Personally, I think it's a shame that the Crown chose to try this particular case as a template for how online behaviour intersects with free speech, because the baseline facts and witnesses were not ultimately credible. It's going to make it more difficult for this legislation to proceed in the future. Same with the Ghomeshi case in how it relates to workplace sexual assault and consent. If you want to argue this specific case, I don't know what to say. At the end of the day, know this: YES. Anyone can sue you at any time. You can wake up tomorrow and find yourself in the middle of a legal melee that will cost you tens of thousands of dollars, just in the pre-trial phase. Your reputation can be dragged through the mud and the damage to your career/life can be permanent. Anxiety and panic attacks can set in and you'll have to deal with them well after the lawsuit is over. Do I like this? Not one little bit. But what's the solution? Do you tell a certain demographic of people they aren't allowed to file lawsuits? Do you limit the authority of the police and Crown? If you do, what happens when it's a legitimate case and they were too powerless to stop the accused? We don't have a perfect system for anything, and we never will. If you have constructive suggestions on how to make it better, throw them into the mix. In my experience, you won't ever be able to keep everyone safe. I've 100% been involved in a court case where the accusations were garbage, and I know intimately the stresses involved with that. On the flip side, if someone sent me a link tonight to a game hundreds of people were playing that allowed them to take a picture of me and beat it as I appeared to me more and more injured, I'd be pretty fucking horrified and scared. The notion that you can do that and it might be perfectly legal is kind of scary.
Juice Edit: This is tabloid nonsense. If it comes from a more legit source and facilitates an actual discussion, post it then.
That is Lindsay graham, a well known member of the Republican Party coming out and saying he's endorsing Ted Cruz, who he hates, because the only thing worse is trump. I'm just baffled by this and feel like it's one of the most outrageous things I've seen in politics. Have other elections been anything like this and I'm just too young to remember. Or has this just gone completely off the rails.
I'm talking about this case because it's what we were talking about initially, remember? I don't even disagree with you in terms of the broader issue. Yeah, there probably is a line where online harassment becomes criminal. You and I probably draw that line in different places, but sure, it exists. I'm sorry, but I don't think you're paying attention to what I'm saying. The problem with this case is that the investigators had access to all his tweets immediately. The process lasted 3 and a half years. Keep that in mind. This case was only about his tweets. There was no he said/she said. They never met in real life. There was no evidence he was part of a larger conspiracy. Frankly, there was nothing to discuss, nothing to argue about or debate in a court room. However, he was still banned from twitter, the internet, smart phones, and any computer that so much as had internet access. He was a graphic artist so this effectively ruined his career. He had to post bail to get out of jail too. The legal system will never be perfect, but how in the fuck how can you justify this case dragging on for more than 3 years? If I was going to suggest an improvement I would say dismiss these cases unless new evidence emerges. There was no reason it should have gone to the extent it did. It sure as hell doesn't take 3.5 years to comb over some tweets, let alone reach a verdict. I don't see why this would set a precedent for future cases. Why would a case about an online debate affect a ruling about someone threatening to murder, rape, maim, etc another person? I'm not following you here. And again, with regards to the face punching, as has been said several times, that was related to the case, but it is not at all what the case was about. It's irrelevant, but since you keep bringing it up I would say that when someone becomes a celebrity there's a certain amount of insulting that is going to happen online. Every celebrity deals with it, even the minor ones. If we started prosecuting people every time they said a celebrity should die, or we should beat the shit out of them or whatever else half the population would be in jail. It would be a witch hunt without end. Also, Anita Sarkessian, who the face punching game was about(again, she's not a defendant in the above case), happens to be a despicable scam artist. Actually, she's even worse than that. Take a look at this if you can be bothered. First off, the level of discourse she is at is just fucking insane. I'm not going to pick over everything, but she's talking like she's the Martin Luther King of women and it's just so ridiculous. Moreover, the charity she's referring to (she calls it a 'fundraising campaign') is a charity that helps women in the third world who are sex slaves, put into forced marriages, shot at for wanting an education, have had their genitals mutilated, and all other things women deal with in societies that really need a heavy dose of feminism. However, she claims the charity is all about harassing and discrediting her? Why? Because the guy who started the fund raising is criticizing her. I mean, she could have disagreed with him and said the charity is good. She could have chose to not even mention it, but no, she had to outright lie about it. This would be bad to begin with, but coming from someone who scams gullible people out of money under the name of feminism about non-existent issues and then doesn't even come close to finishing the (completely inexpensive) projects she claimed she was raising the money for, that's just downright being a piece of shit. Maybe, whether you like it or not(I personally thought it was lame), you can at least see why someone would make a game about punching her in the face. Mostly, I just can't get over how dumb her fans are. Not even the idiots who write checks to televangelists are this fucking stupid. At least when reverend cantgetenoughvagina is caught with 3 hookers and a pound of cocaine they stop writing checks. Her fans are like the fish that gets thrown back in the lake and then bites the same hook a minute later, and then does it again, and again, and again. Shit is just surreal.
Sarkeesian could rise above the level of two-faced lying scumbag if she would just once debate a naysayer. Just ONCE answer her critics. She never has, ever, which puts her on the same level as David Muschavich: a morally bankrupt cult member who believes as long as they never answer any questions- ever- they will always be right. Sarkeesian demands the world be moulded in her opinions and nothing else, period. What the fuck does she know? She has s communications degree and calls herself a "pop culture critic" which isn't even a profession. Her fans line her pockets for literally nothing-- she doesn't do anything at all. She bitches about video games, lately about how the game called "Hitman" could be so much more fun if there wasn't killing or violence in it. She's that stupid along with her dickless puppeteer Jon Mcintosh. She's a life-ruiner who hates men and uses women. She's lost any sympathy privileges. Seriously, how desperate is she right now?
Cause he knows Cruz isn't getting the nomination. The only way to beat Trump now is to get this to a brokered convention, so supporting Cruz is in essence just supporting anyone but Trump to force a detour.
https://www.graphiq.com/wlp/dJnsfXlmEmN Why does ISIS hate Norway and Sweden, but not Finland? I think all three were opposed to the last allied war in Iraq. So, is it current politics or how Muslim immigrants are treated or what?