but also remember those special classes you were forced into in grade school, too

I know that I said I have Asperger’s, but I’ve never had to take special classes for it, unless you count the gifted program and honors classes for those who do exceptionally well in school. Asperger’s isn’t typically a huge problem with academics, so they don’t really have special programs to attempt to make us “fit in”. I’m not sure you understand what autism actually is.

[link from the Columbian]

This is what organized gang stalking looks like when it appears in the MSM, and it is,a cleverly crafted message that denies accountability for police state practices of punitive psychology.

I’m not seeing anything that could suggest “police state” here, and unless you have supplementary evidence to suggest that anything was mischaracterized or something, I can’t exactly criticize the credibility of this article from a seemingly credible source on a topic I have no additional knowledge of and that seems to not include any substantial opinions or characterizations from the writer beyond facts and quotes from both sides of the courtroom and facts that don’t appear to be in dispute. Well, aside from a brief reference that two of the people involved shared “paranoid” beliefs that they were victims of “gang stalking”, but I’d need more particular evidence to prove that their beliefs were anything more than the result of paranoia. (And no, even if you proved that “gang stalking” is a real thing that causes real harm, that wouldn’t be enough to change my opinion on how it applies to this case.)

Incidentally, you ask me to use “nuance” here, but now I’m beginning to wonder if you understand what “nuance” actually is, because while there are some nuances to the article, it’s mostly a straightforward, evenhanded recitation of facts on one particular case without trying to draw conclusions of being part of a trend or pattern. Nuance is essentially stuff like allowing for figurative language, multiple interpretations, cultural differences, reasonable disagreements, “wiggle room”, exceptions to rules, etc. I’m not sure how that really applies to this article. I mean, I’m open to having a nuanced discussion about it, if that’s what you mean.

Well, cause and effect have nearly nothing to do with so -called counter terrorism initiatives that suborn the libel (witty online banter ), slander, and actual perjury of sysadmins, but thats another topic entirely, be cause frequently, it is sysadmins,(in.the US they are FBI created Infragard ) that are totally complicit with CVE programs.

[citation needed]

You […] seem to be a cockblock on issues that affect communities that you suborn to speak for, aka, communities of color, etc.

And in so doing, you perform actual dis -service to those communities, by ignoring the vernacular that they speak, and concepts that they use every day.

I don’t recall speaking on behalf of communities of color or anything. Nor do I recall their vernacular being at issue here, so I don’t see how I’d be ignoring them.

The most I’ve done is ask for you to explain certain terms that I am unfamiliar with and not to assume that everyone is necessarily familiar with the vernacular and/or concepts that may be commonplace or well-known in your community. That isn’t ignoring anyone’s vernacular or everyday concepts. If anything, it’s a request that you help others like myself understand them.

So, can I show you something derived from activist culture?

[link to a forum post about gang stalking]

Now, the first red flag that popped up was the fact that the post contains a lot of links that are supposed to provide additional information but were removed by moderation. That’s pretty significant.

Additionally, I’m not seeing any statistics or evidence that it exists, only a description of what it is. Plus, this is a forum post on a site that looks like it was cheaply made and that I’m unfamiliar with, so the credibility out of the gate isn’t terribly high. Forum posts tend to lack credibility in general, and the number of links removed by moderation only exacerbates that.

I may read this more later, but at a glance, it’s not looking like it’s strong evidence of anything.

activists from EVERY ACTIVIST COMMUNITY are reporting on ORGANIZED gang stalking, and Mr. Cushing is too.

Again, I would like actual evidence of this. Also, activists report on a lot of things. Some are real; some are not. The mere fact that activists report on something isn’t evidence of anything. And I find it hard to believe that every activist community is reporting on this, given that some only cover scams or wildlife preservation.

But this *easily debunked /derisive /disinformative perspective of conspiracy theory is NOT what you claim it is -Hanlons Razor, slicing and dicing the crazies online, because in fact and in practice (and I consistently provide evidence ) it is what I,say it is: Counter Terror ”Professionals“ “slicing Ochams Throat” with a razor, and turning logic, and expedient explanations on its head.

First, you have not consistently provided evidence, and when you do, it often doesn’t support your claims at all.

Second, I don’t recall ever actually claiming to know exactly what you’re claiming or actually calling it a conspiracy. I did say that it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but I never said it was. Most of this has been trying to get you to actually explain what your claim—conspiracy theory or not—actually is and to provide evidence supporting the claims that I did—more or less—understand. Whether it’s a conspiracy theory or not, I just asked for clarification and evidence, which should be expected.

At any rate, I’m not sure you understand how much of what you’re referring to works, and you’re missing one of the important tools. Let me summarize:

• Hanlon’s Razor — “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.” It essentially means “don’t assume bad faith when incompetence or ignorance is still a reasonable explanation.” For example, if you make an absurd claim with no evidence to support it and claim the evidence is being covered up, rather than assuming you’re a liar or have an agenda, it’s usually better to assume that you’re just being paranoid or are extremely gullible. It’s often useful as a tool to avoid just dismissing someone because of their arguments and to reduce anger and frustration on both sides. After all, ignorance can be remedied. Of course, it also presents an issue for conspiracy theories, which often involve presuming that multiple, often seemingly unrelated events are connected and that the purpetrators are acting in concert for ill purposes. Hanlon’s razor leans in favor of them not being in a conspiracy or acting in good faith.
• Occam’s Razor — “The simplest solution is most likely the right one.” Essentially, this is used when you have two or more competing explanations for some phenomena, events, whatever. As a general rule, if all else is equal, the “simplest” one (the one that requires the fewest assumptions to accept) is generally the right one. This is often used in debates over creationism and conspiracy theories. See, one of the fundamental problems with many conspiracy theories is that they generally involve a large number of people—from important, powerful, rich, and/or famous to unimportant, weak, poor, and/or completely unknown—all being in on the conspiracy without any of them leaking anything. That’s a pretty massive assumption compared to what the alternatives tend to offer. Now, the balance may change with additional evidence (like the Snowden leaks), but that only shows how having no leaks, especially over a long period of time, is pretty unlikely. Essentially, it shifts the burden of proof to be stronger on explanations that require more assumptions, that are more complex.
• Hitchen’s Razor — “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.” You didn’t mention this, but I feel it’s worth noting. It’s essentially a statement about the burden of proof. A lot of conspiracy theorists (and others) tend to assert claims but never provide actual evidence that supports their claims, or that make their claims any more likely compared to other potential explanations. When called out on that by demanding more evidence, they often claim that the evidence is “out there” and demand others search for it (“Do your own research!” “Google it!”), assert that the lack of evidence is merely proof of a cover-up (that the lack of evidence supporting it proves their claims), or demand that the other side submit evidence that the claims are false. Hitchen’s razor is used to prevent that from working by making it clear that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and you don’t need proof or evidence to dismiss a claim that was made with no evidence.

These are tools in logical and rational discussions that help weigh claims’ truthfulness. The first two involve explanations where the evidence doesn’t strongly favor one particular explanation over its competitors, and can be overcome with enough evidence that supports the disfavored explanation but not the alternative(s). The third just makes it clear that someone making a claim should provide evidence if they don’t want their claims to be dismissed out of hand. It’s all about burden of proof and how much proof is needed for different alternatives. Unless you have evidence of their misuse, I have no idea what your problem is.

It IS military derived harrassment, targeted at individuals, and it is horrific.

As far as I understand it, you seem to be claiming that US government agents, the ADL, zionists, and people online (among others) are conspiring to engage in mass online harassment of various people for unspecified reasons (which is apparently known as gang stalking). Among the targets appear to be so-called incels and Muslims. The supposed goal appears to be to get these people to commit terrorist acts and then jail or execute them as terrorists. The alleged motives for doing so is unclear to me but appears to be to promote some sort of Zionist or Israeli agenda or something.

Now, if true, that would certainly be horrific, and there are a few kernels of truth here and there (like the fact that government agents have been known to “manufacture” terrorists out of law-abiding citizens, though not through the means described). However, there are a number of problems with this claim. First, of course, is Occam’s and Hanlon’s razors, particularly the former. Basically, the assumption that this is some sort of organized effort rather than standard online mobbing is a pretty big assumption. (Basically, if “gang stalking” is the online equivalent to “gang violence”, then “online mobbing” would be the online equivalent to a riot or something; no actual organization, just a group of people who started something bad and more people just got caught up in it and joined in.) To overturn the much simpler and more benign alternative explanations in favor of your “organized gang stalking” theory (even excluding the government’s involvement, which has its own wrinkle) would require substantial evidence which you haven’t provided.

And regarding the involvement of Israel, the government, or the ADL, you’ve provided no evidence at all, so Hitchen’s Razor is also a major roadblock here. (Well, you did provide evidence regarding the ADL doing something like that, but you haven’t proven that they’re involved in this particular conspiracy.)

Additionally, while you’ve alleged that certain particular incidents involved “organized gang stalking”, the articles you provided lack either any evidence of harassment, evidence of organization, or both. The only article that even mentions gang stalking doesn’t provide any evidence that gang stalking actually occurred. So even if the alleged trend exists, you provided no evidence that these particular events were even part of that trend.

On top of that, you’ve provided no evidence of anything connecting these different events or of a trend in general, so I have no reason to believe that there is a trend to begin with as opposed to some isolated incidents even if they were as you claimed.

Now, to the substance of your post:

This short segue actually has some issues. First, since this comment was the first in a new thread rather than a reply to one of my posts, so I don’t have any definitive way to know which post of mine you’re referring to. Ordinarily, I’d use the points you’re addressing to figure that out, but that leads to the next, even larger issue: in this section, you don’t address anything in any of my posts, let alone their substance. In fact, of the things I said, the only parts you appear to address in any part of this comment are some requests for more information/evidence (though as mentioned, they’re insufficient) and the fact that I “conceded” that I have Asperger’s. So no, you certainly haven’t addressed the substance of my post.

• “Stormfront perhaps, or Breitbart”- I suspect that this is itself, your own confession of loyalty. Whats your nym there?

I think you may be confusing me with someone else and this comment section with a completely different one. I’ve never mentioned Stormfront at all, here or elsewhere, and the only time I’ve ever mentioned Breitbart was when someone tried to use it as a source or in an article or thread discussing Breitbart (or when comparing the credibility of a source to Breitbart), and that was always to say that Breitbart is not a credible source. I never mentioned Breitbart in this comment section or in any of my discussions with you.

Additionally, based on a quick search, no one else has mentioned Stormfront or Breitbart by name anywhere in this comment section either. The only result I got for either search term on this page at all was in your comment that is allegedly quoting me.

So I have no idea who said that or where or when it was said, but it wasn’t me, and it wasn’t here. And to answer your question, I am not a visitor to either Breitbart or Stormfront, let alone a frequent one. I may have read the occasional article in Breitbart, but that was pretty rare and I took anything I read there with a mountain of salt. As such, I have certainly never commented on either site, so I have no nym there.

So no, that is certainly not my “confession of loyalty”. I didn’t say it, and the alleged conclusion is false.

• blind assertions- You NEVER read the linked material. Not once, ever.

While I cannot recall every single case offhand, it’s worth noting that you rarely link material to begin with. However, with such a broad, absolute statement, I need only mention one counterexample. Even excluding the material linked in this particular comment, I read the very first linked article you posted. You remember? It was the one about the first online incel community being founded by a lesbian. Yeah, if you actually read my response to that (as well as several later posts that mention the issue), you would know I read the article because I specifically note that it says that, even early on and increasingly as time went on, the incel community was dominated by heterosexual cismales. And that’s according to the founder’s testimony. I also noted that the article describes one famous misogynistic guy who went on a killing spree, and that it doesn’t say anything about him being the victim of any harassment, organized or otherwise.

I also specifically remember reading an article about some terrorist in Europe being arrested. I think it was supposed to be evidence that the terrorist was radicalized by the government or online harassment, but the article presented no evidence of anything like that.

To say that I have never read any of the material you linked is completely false and unsupported by the evidence. If you think that the fact that I say that you fail to back up your assertions with evidence means I just haven’t read what evidence you have provided (which isn’t often), that’s fallacious reasoning. In each case you provided a source, I specifically noted that I read it and couldn’t find evidence to back up your claims (except the one case that involved the founder of incels, but again I never argued against that, and the rest of the article doesn’t support any of your other claims). Just because you provide links doesn’t mean that you’ve supported your claim with evidence. If the linked source is unreliable or (in your case) doesn’t provide any evidence supporting your claim, then you haven’t provided evidence of your claims, and your claims are essentially “blind assertions” or wild speculation.

• you lie outright

I just want to say that I never said this, either. I have not accused you of lying. I have said that you’re wrong, mistaken, ignorant, or trolling, but I never called you a liar.

Now I want to skip to a particular part of this point.

but lies […] aka demonstrative speech

That’s not what demonstrative speech is. Demonstrative speech is where you give instructions on how to do something. I believe you criticized me for not understanding anything about demonstrative speech (a subject that had never previously discussed), and I actually explained what it is and how it has nothing to do with what we’ve been discussing. However, it would appear that the issue was that you were mistaken about demonstrative speech all along.

No, I do not, as tegards the,ACTUAL and empirically documented fact that organized gang stalking is a highly coordinated and well financed high.policing methodology

You haven’t presented any empirical documentation about this alleged “fact”, so I’m afraid I’m going to have to use Hitchen’s Razor again and disregard this claim. (Note: this isn’t calling this an outright lie; it’s just an unsupported claim.)

And by the way, if you think that what you’ve presented thus far constitutes “empirical documentation”, then you clearly don’t know what “empirical” actually means. Hint: it involves statistical analysis of data, not just a bunch of anecdotes.

but lies(whatever those actually are ) […] are -with qualified exceptions, too many to discuss here.

Considering that this is supposed to be refuting the supposed allegation that “you lie outright”, I’m not sure what your point is here. It makes it sound like you’ve told so many lies that there are too many for you to possibly discuss. Maybe you were referring to times people have alleged that you lied? And what are these “qualified exceptions” that are apparently not too numerous to discuss here? Why not describe those, then?

But about you, I am certain you are lily white*and approaching dialectic space as if the average activist ever had such privileged education, to EVERY n know the difference.

Again, this has nothing to do with the claim (which, to reiterate, I never made) that you are supposedly addressing.

At any rate, I never assumed you had a “privileged education”. In fact, based on how you sometimes misuse terms like “demonstrative speech” and your sometimes poor grammar and spelling, I was more leaning towards the opposite.

If you’re referring to my statements that an activist like yourself should be prepared to answer questions like the ones I’ve asked and similar statements/suggestions, I was offering advice and guidance about being better at communicating your claims, as well as what is expected of you in this sort of environment. I never expected you to have any more knowledge or education in general than I do, but as an activist, I do expect you to have more specific knowledge about whatever it is you’re advocating or trying to spread awareness about. Actually, that’s not quite limited to activists but people online in general.

I approached this “dialectic space” for informed discussions on certain subjects, and in many cases it’s been successful. As such, I don’t see any specific reason to drastically alter my approach to discussions.

p.s.I am not sure why YOU are around here either, other than that TD(and Masnick Et al ) is fairly white, and has a major blindspot about its own whiteness, and, regular commenters like you

Like I said, it was for the interesting takes and discussions on subjects I’m interested in, like copyright, free speech, silly laws, and silly lawsuits. It certainly had nothing to do with skin color. I don’t even know what any of these people look like (with the exception of some of the writers), have no interaction with them outside of this particular site (at least as far as I know), and I can’t exactly infer someone’s skin tone through text unless they outright say it (or say something really bigoted).