City Of Dallas Shuts Down Business Of Man Who Called Cops Over 100 Times In 20 Months To Deal With Criminals Near His Car Wash

from the damned-if-you-call,-damned-if-you-don't dept

Let’s talk about nuisance abatement laws. These are laws cities can use to shut down businesses that appear to draw more than their fair share of the criminal element.

If you’re a fan of asset forfeiture, you’ll love nuisance laws. By abdicating their law enforcement responsibilities, cities can have their lower cost cake and eat your property too. It’s win-win for cities, who love to use laws like this to effectively seize property from citizens who have the misfortune to operate legitimate businesses in high crime areas.

Here’s how it works in Dallas, Texas. The city says business owners must pay for their own security devices and personnel to keep their businesses free of criminals. No business will be compensated for these additional costs. All cops need to do is throw a couple of placards at the business and the city takes it from there. Criminal activity in the area is now the responsibility of businesses in the area. Can’t get criminals to get off your property? Too bad. It’s the city’s property now.

The Dallas police chief has a new tool in her arsenal to force home and business owners to address crime on or near their properties: shame.

On Wednesday, the Dallas City Council passed a “nuisance abatement” ordinance allowing Police Chief U. Renee Hall to identify properties that tolerate criminal activity and try to get the owners to address it.

The new ordinance allows city officials to slap a sign on properties identified as sites of “habitual criminal activity.”

The first efforts involve shaming the business owners for things they likely cannot control. This isn’t the only step taken, though. The placards are the beginning. If the city feels the business owner isn’t doing enough to control crime in the area (surely that’s a law enforcement job?), it can shut the business down and keep fining it for anything and everything it can think of until the business owner is insolvent and has to sell the property.

A South Dallas car wash owner has been fighting the city on and off for most of three decades over its application of nuisance laws. The city has already shut down Dale Davenport’s car wash. City council members claim Davenport is to blame for the crime that surrounds his business. It also claims he’s done next to nothing to solve a problem he didn’t create.

Davenport fought back. He demanded the city turn over 911 call records linked to his business in order to show the problem isn’t his, but the Dallas Police Department’s. After several months of being stonewalled, he has finally obtained the documents he needs to show the city it’s not doing all it can to combat crime. Jim Schutze of the Dallas Observer has been following this fight for years and has the details.

After a two-year tooth-and-nail battle with the city, Davenport’s lawyer, Warren Norred, recently forced City Hall to cough up the official record of 911 calls Davenport has been making all along, begging police to come to his place of business.

It’s not just a few calls scattered over several months. Davenport called the cops constantly, asking them to come deal with the criminal element that seemed to feel it could just hang out at his place of business. The city says crime is Davenport’s fault. The record(s) [PDF] show this is a failure of city agencies, most notably the Dallas PD.

On and on the 911 reports go for 414 single-spaced pages… And that covers only 20 months from 1/5/18 to 9/25/19. Dale Davenport and his father, Freddy Davenport, have been calling the cops to their property for 27 years.

Davenport is suing the city and the hundreds of pages of 911 calls are vital to his litigation. The city wants to take his property, claiming he hasn’t fulfilled his obligations as a citizen and business owner. 414 pages of 911 calls says otherwise. Davenport (and his father before him) have been pleading for the city to clean up a crime-infested area filled with drug houses and the criminal element drawn to this area by the (apparently) unchecked drug trade.

The PD’s newly-formed Nuisance Abatement Team doesn’t appear to have made any impact here, other than posting placards on businesses it believes aren’t doing enough to fight the crime the Dallas PD should be fighting. Paying taxes should entitle you to city services, but only thing Dallas wants to give Davenport in exchange for his involuntary contributions is all the blame for the crime that surrounds him.

Fourteen years ago, a state committee investigation [PDF] found Dallas’ nuisance laws had been abused severely and regularly.

Sworn testimony before the house committee described specific cases of misuse of the statute by city officials such as:

• Targeting of a few, select businesses in high-crime areas, while ignoring more serious crimes occurring on surrounding properties;
• Directing businesses to hire certain security personnel with the clear suggestion that hiring these select individuals would diminish the city’s threatened enforcement of nuisance abatement;
• Parking a large number of police cars in the parking lot of a business owner as a retaliatory act toward that owner, who had challenged the city’s nuisance action against him and had testified in court on behalf of an individual who was acquitted of charges for resisting arrest while on the business’ property;
• Using calls to police requesting assistance by the business as marks against that business in the city’s criteria for evidence of nuisance abatement violations;
• Directing a hotel property owner to run criminal history checks on all guests, which is a possible violation of the guests’ civil rights and could potentially subject the business to legal liability; and
• Sanctioning a local car wash owner because marihuana was found in the pants pocket of a person working on the property. It was suggested by the city legal department that the owner needed to conduct random pat-down searches of persons working on the property on a regular basis — an act prohibited by law even for law enforcement officers.

To sum up:

[T]he committees are gravely concerned that the problems stemming from Dallas’ use of the nuisance laws are the result of a unique and incorrect interpretation of those laws by city officials — wrongly taking the laws to mean that fighting crime is no longer the city’s responsibility but has instead now become primarily the responsibility of private citizens and businesses; and that private citizens can be held strictly liable for crimes that take place on or near their property even when they are not involved in that crime, have taken affirmative steps to prevent the crime, are themselves victims of that crime, and have reported the crime, requesting the assistance of law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the body of evidence available to the committees also strongly suggests that the city uses the nuisance laws to intimidate, promote cronyism, and inappropriately use law enforcement personnel, specifically uniformed police and code enforcement officers, to deliver not-too-subtle messages of coercion and retaliation to legitimate businesses and property owners who refuse to submit to such tactics.

It’s 2020. Nothing has changed. The city continues to shrug off its responsibilities and put private business owners in the impossible position of clearing out nearby crime without relying on the law enforcement services the city is supposed to provide to taxpayers. I guess the city believes it’s only obligation to business owners like Davenport is to staff 911 call centers. Other than that, they’re on their own until the city shuts them down.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “City Of Dallas Shuts Down Business Of Man Who Called Cops Over 100 Times In 20 Months To Deal With Criminals Near His Car Wash”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Seems like a simple enough solution for politicians with spines

If someone doesn’t do their job then you don’t pay them. As such, if the Dallas police can’t be bothered to do their job and are instead trying to foist it on the taxpayers I don’t see any reason those taxpayers should be paying them either.

Killing off the law that encourages them to act that way would probably be a good solution as well, but I guess the local politicians are too cowardly and/or corrupt to stand up to the lazy schmucks in uniform to do so.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Bergman (profile) says:

Re: Seems like a simple enough solution for politicians with spi

The city owns the streets. Technically every criminal in the city is hanging out on city property and using it to accomplish their illegal actions. Someone ought to seize the city.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Seems like a simple enough solution for politicians with spi

Much as the Dallas police and city council set themselves up as targets, there are times where a city simply cannot buy enough policing. Police want to be paid, just like everyone else, and if they are doing their 8 hour shifts and overtime besides (because hey, benefits for new hires cost more than the overtime pay for the existing force) they may not be able to respond to everything.

And once criminals see they can get away with things, you get more criminals.

Happened to montreal in the ’60s. They only solved it by expanding the taxing district (to include the wealthy suburbs).

Mayhap Dallas needs to take a lesson from Montreal. … as well as forgoing the forfeiture law. Once you factor lawsuits, management, and loss of tax revenue in, it’s not like forfeiture is revenue-positive to Dallas anyway.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Seems like a simple enough solution for politicians

Criminals might be armed and possibly be less easy marks than the local business owner – and the business owner may have more goods the local squad might want to impound under the civil forfeiture rules.

It’s not given that a cop would want a bong, crack pipe, or colorful used hat after all, but they can probably use a margarita machine or a zamboni.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Isn't it obvious?

‘Hey, I notice you’re buying and selling drugs over there, if you could pretty-please stop doing that that’d be great, because if you don’t the police are going to blame me for the fact that they never actually get off their backsides and do something that might actually pose any sort of threat to the whole ‘engaged in an illegal but highly lucrative crime’ thing you’ve got going there.’

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
renato (profile) says:

Re: Uhh...

The solution is to not report anything to the police and hope that the criminals somehow control themselves, it might work if the drug-dealers punish the petty crimes that disturb their business or their clients.
It results in a area with a lot of victimless crimes, but no crime statistics.
It can get stable if the police go harder one the eventually reported crime in a "low"-crime area.

However, it won’t work if someone defects and start reporting crimes because of an aversion to it and not because they were directed affected.
Another possible reason for collapse is if the police itself starts to use the area to extract resources from the residents, like the case reported in the article that you could buy protection from some selected guards probably related to the police.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Uhh...

"Cops, and their butties have largely replaced mafias in a bizarre extortion /blackmail /shakedown racket called gang stalking…"

You mean bullying, ostracism, and opportunism mediated by the convenience of having a list of "suspects" passed around internationally which every cop anywhere can put entries in?

Yes, that’s the sadly predictable outcome of turning "law enforcement" and "intelligence" processes into scapegoating weathervanes primarily intended for political face-saving rather than organizations mean to function and operate in human society.

Quis custodes ipsos custodiet

Agreed,mostly says:

Re: Re: Re:3 I do watch the watchers

I have an extensive history of watching the watchers.

And, I agree with your take on corruption, however, I urge you to use the common vernacular that those targeted by this corruption use themselves, which is gang stalking, because you are saying in many words what can be said in a simple phrase.

Again, creating common terms is essential to
taking power back and owning the narrative, but also, to catching these people in action, and possibly mitigating damage to individuals, and society.

And as you surely note, several tens of thousands of words into this, at least we are having a conversation.

Right now, they are winning, because they have reduced the impact on the public of their activity, because they have succeeded with the crazy peeple/not crazy people binary reduction.

I simply seek to expose that, by using the language of the victims themselves.

So, in the example at hand in the article we see a city, its police, and processes targeting an individual.

And I guarantee that somewhere aling the,way, informants are being used, and those marginalized, unsympathetic appearing characters and persons absolutely know and use the term gang stalking.

So, yes, the term itself is loded at the front end to not only enable the corrupt, but also to gaslight and marginaluze those who expose the corruption.

Gang stalking denialists are always,allied with political face-saving.

renato (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Uhh...

It doesn’t necessary require a mafia to make it work.

It seems that there is more money in other activities than extorting business owners for protection, specially if there’s a chance to be punished for that, a news article complaining that those business owners have to pay someone because the police is completely useless looks very effective to correct the situation while an area having a good drug traffic is only reported if someone is directly hurt.
And, I don’t believe most criminals are ready to bear the burdens needed to punishing those who defect and stay afloat with the backlash caused by it.

No reported crimes (and consequently fewer crimes with victims) is also beneficial for criminals, because they will have a lower chance of punishment.
And sometimes, since the police is more interested in being seem to be doing something and not really in solving the problem, a third criminal can be harassed for someone else’s actions, and in this case you can have criminals policing themselves without a formal organization, and its increased power to coerce others, like business owners.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

morganwick (profile) says:

Re: 414 pages = 130 calls

Its interesting, because in my (admittedly left-of-center) view, the headline implies that the car wash owner was probably just being racist and calling the cops over minor things or things that aren’t crimes at all, and the cops finally put a stop to it. It actually makes the city look like the good guys, reinforced by the inflated number of calls, assuming you aren’t firmly against the ability of government to take private property at all and aren’t aware of Techdirt’s general opposition to such things. A more "Techdirt-y" headline, and one closer to the point of the post, would be something like "City of Dallas: Is your business located in a den of crime? Stop it yourself – or we’ll take your business."

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

the headline implies that the car wash owner was probably just being racist and calling the cops over minor things or things that aren’t crimes at all, and the cops finally put a stop to it

Even if the car wash owner was being racist and calling the cops over minor “crimes”, that doesn’t justify the cops “put[ting] a stop to it” by taking the man’s business away from him. No matter how you want to frame the actions of the business owner, the government still looks worse.

jonr (profile) says:

It's even worse...

OK, I skimmed through some of the archived stories about the car wash, and the city looks even worse. According to those stories, the owner, apparently recognizing that Dallas PD wasn’t going to do the job he needed, formed a PID (an association of local businesses) to collect extra taxes for security and trash pickup. There were some such services for a time, but they stopped (but the taxes did not).

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Dale Davenport says:

Re: It's even worse...

I am the owner of Jim’s Car Wash. The depth of corruption within the City of Dallas goes much deeper then most people realize. Those interested in the truth, should read all the Dallas Observer Articles about Jim’s Car Wash by Jim Schutze dating back to 2005. Also, click on the links below to watch the hearings in Dallas and Austin having to do with the Nuisance Abatement Law for a really enlightened view of how the City of Dallas and the powers that be will stop at nothing to get what they want.

3-23-05 Civil Practices
Time begins at about 53:30.

These are from the 2005 79th Legislative Session:

10/11/05- Session 1

10/11/05- Session 2

10/12/05- Session 1

10/12/05- Session 2

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull /Aspergers says:

Re: Re: Re:4 you...warn me?

Wow, see what happens when you empower word police like you?


Listen: I hope that AC chatbot you are defending spills water on its keyboard, and electrocutes itself.

Is that ok with your inner Aspergers sense of order, and what is acceptable speech online you unchecked tone troll?

Adam Lanza had similar qualities. I wonder if he was targeted because of it.

Just sayin ’.

BTW, your 13 bytes of code that you contributed to GitHub are seriously impressive. We should let people like you run the world from there,at your keyboard, so the rest of us can relax out here in the, real world

The thirteens, lol.

Hey, youre working hard. Why dont you take a break, maybe go get a glass of water, and a chell pill.

(grabs spelkchekr in Aspergers induced rage )

And, maybe have a look at Techdirts coverage of how JTRIG and other intel agencies manipulate online discourse in key conversations.

Then, have a look at a former security contractors site, where he chronicles groups of intel agency affilliated trolls who stalk people online and off.

These trolls are indiscernible from what you et al are doing here, and include the USAF affilliated group OSI

Gee, I hope I dont get online mobbed for sayin all that, or get gang stalked here at TD …. which Scary Devil Monastery has acknowledged as, real BTW.

But Im ready for the offline thuggery that your types stir up, any time you wanna bring it .

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 you...warn me?

I have no interest in taking this offline, and I happen to agree with SDM.

I also acknowledge the existence of JTRIG and I am opposed to it.

Yes, gang stalking is a thing (see Gamergate), but I don’t think it’s a conspiracy or anything; just standard mob mentality. There is also no evidence that you are at any risk of being gang-stalked by people here. Honestly, you’re the only one who’s even come close to it, and even that’s stretching the definition quite a bit.

Basically, where I disagree with you is the extent of these issues and how they apply in individual cases. Again, just like SDM.

I am currently a college student, so my GitHub is used for school stuff and personal fun. Plus, a lot of work was either offline or a collab with someone else, and I occasionally remove old stuff from it as well, so what’s currently on there is a fraction of what I’ve written. I really only use it for resumes, though my senior project will be there soon. It also has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.

I only “tone troll” about telling people to kill themselves because, even if it’s directed towards an AI chatbot, it also hurts people it’s not directed toward and it’s completely unnecessary. Seriously, if it’s an AI chatbot, then it’s stupid at best to tell it to kill itself. If it’s a person, then you’re being just as bad as the people you purport to oppose. Either way, it adds nothing positive to the conversation and serves no legitimacy purpose. I’ve never said it was illegal. By all means, you are legally allowed to say it all you want. However, I also have the right to denounce you for saying it each and every time I see it.

I was never interested in causing trouble. All that I’ve asked of you is that you stay within eyesight of being somewhat civil and to provide decent evidence in support of your claims. Neither of those things are limited to me, either. Others have done so as well. If you think that’s “trolling”, derailing, online mobbing, gang stalking, raging at you, or whatever, then I have no idea what you consider acceptable discourse unless it agrees with you.

And you once again show how little you understand autism. Have you noticed that outside of, like, a few occasions, I’ve never actually mentioned your bad spelling and grammar? Because it’s happened quite a lot more than that. I just don’t bother correcting it every single time I see it. You spent more time criticizing/making fun of one guy who accidentally wrote “almoat” once than I have criticized your spelling and grammar over every thread I’ve written in. You think that it bothers me that much? That’s pathetic.

Almoat Sparkling Sand Baby says:

Re: Re: Re:6 you...warn me?

Well, thanks for admitting that gang stalking is indeed a real thing.

As I told SDM, you could have done that weeks ago, and poof I would have dropped it with you.

But what you and others, actually did was to flamebait, to tone troll, gang stalk and flag my posts, starting with your defense of Wendy Cockblocks (incorrect and casually mis-applied) use of the term incel, while hurling inept misplaced invectives, or concurring with such maladroits.

You then went on to state that the fact that the incel movement was started by an LGBTetc woman had nothing to do with the LGBTetc. community, while also inferring or concurring with anon trolls(who you never flag) that I am a crazy, racist, antiqueer, blablah ad nauseum conspiracy theorist, despite your own professed mental illness /disorder; and your now conceded admission that I was right all along.

And, predictably, it went to shit from there.


And so, yeah, you come across as sort of disingenuous in the least, and outright deceptive and irresponsible at best.

I never said, anywhere, that anyone should agree with me, EVER.

I invited and eventually inveighled discussion, and merely publicized a set of facts to raise awareness about a topic that affects public health, and then, watched, profiled, tested, and analyzed the responses with SOCMINT and applied psychology, some labellng theory, and that, while responding in kind to each commenter.

Its what I do, and its what others here did, or attempted to do with me too.

I am demonstrative speech in action, primarily demonstrating bizarre western dialectical taboos, and mocking them at every turn, and here to on a K4 moderated site.

And, because the terms of TDs forum are biased, and many of its commenters not the most honest, or up-and-up folks, the rules of civility in discourse are totally arbitrary here, and the flag system is ripe for un-democratic abuse and intel agency/NGO/institutional abuse.

All that said, you, and SDM are almost there:

  • both of you have conceded that gang stalking is real, weeks and years (consecutively) after I first broached the topic here
  • both of you acknowlege it as an evolutionary function of the hive/herd mind
  • both of you struggle with the idea that it is highly organized, or orchestrated by individuals or institutions

Is that an accurate assessment in your mind?

So where I disagree with you is the extent of these issues and how they apply in individual cases is really the heart of the matter.

Starting from my news reporting in a college newsroom back in 2001-4 where I reported on a man who will likely one day be seen as Americas first post 911 manufactured terrorist, I have documented(and experienced firsthand) so-called counter terrorism initiatives from several different perspectives.

And I can tell you without any doubt, CVE programs condone, and encourage gang stalking; and that each CVE-related case is indeed, highly and absurdly organized (as in the case of the Pensacola shooter being cyberstaljed by FBI/CIA,affilliated prifessional race/religion baiters who use psyops), whereas Reddit threads and garden variety online mobbing not so much, although clearly its therevtoo, just not highly organuzed until a speaker breaks an arbitrary and unevenly applied social or naratological taboo.

So, the Af-Am guy in Detroit who has three old white wimmin calling the cops on him, reporting him as a gang member, and as a pedophile because he plants,a garden on a vacant lot is indeed gang stalking, and is indeed organized, and is indeed part of the,see something, say something model of social control/social engineering.

Would you agree with that statement?

And while that mans lufe was altered in some sense after that experience, he was later vindicated by the policethemselves, and one good judge who is aware of gang staljing as a,real, non-delusional feature of modern life.

And so, raising awareness of this hortible crime, and combatting its disinformation aspect is what I do, specifically because white supremacists who work in psychology as actual gang stalkers via forensic psychology, and CVE-affilliated positions of trust need to get bitch slapped, namely Drs. Lorraine Sheridan, David V.James, Christine Sarteschi, Elizabeth Dietrich, et al.

You can view that highly coordinated, highly organized narrative structuring (framing) disinformation campaign in action here:

Now, to be fair, as I have discussed elsewhere, I fully concede my sometimes shit spelling, as I have said, its hard to type with one thumb on my smart devices, as I parachute into dialectic war zones, or zoom through wormholes in cyberspace to liberate no touch tortured (NTT in the CIAs manual) prisoners from internet black sites and ADLified spaces, all the while being sniped at by hidden AC chatbots, spread across multiple posts.

You get the idea.

And about Almoat Man, well, if you recall, just a couple posts up from its was some asspad going grammar Nazi on me, as I was dodging Stephens invisibility cloaked Nazi Papa Underwear® that he was swinging like a banhammer.

So, it was all in good fun.

Lastly, re: even if it’s directed towards an AI chatbot, it also hurts people

I find your defense of AC AI chatbots troubling, but also, that you completely absolve them of malintent doubly so, but far worse than that? Your willingness to allow them to control our human dialogues online.

In case you havent noticed, those little bionic bitches contributed zero substance to the discussion, and ONLY flame and derail with racial epithets, and worse.

Maybe, next time, call one of them.out, and drag them through a few,weeks of your version of rule based civil discourse.

Good luck with that, because the TD ACs do NOT follow rules of civility, and neither does Stoner, Cocksoft, that shitbag toom, or any other TD King for a Day for that matter.

In fact, the only rules followed here are binary fascist/fascist, strength in numbers only, and that, enforced by K4 derived word policing as pretext to cyber-lynching.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 you...warn me?

I thought I made it clear weeks ago that I agreed gang stalking was a real thing and only disagreed on the “organized” part, but I suppose that a misunderstanding is entirely possible. At least we’re… well, maybe not quite on the same page, but a lot closer than before.

I’ll discuss the rest soon (I definitely have a few more things I want to address), but one thing I wanted to address now was a particular misunderstanding.

See, with the whole AI chatbots thing, I think you misunderstood what I meant when I said about how what you said “still hurts people”. I did not mean the AI chatbots would be hurt. Maybe someday in the distant future, AI will be developed enough that chatbots have feelings too (or at least have a decent facsimile of them), but not today

No, I was referring to people reading the chat.

See, I’m concerned about those reading who may have lost loved ones to suicide. Your comments are insensitive to actual victims of suicide, at least in my opinion. That’s what I meant.

I can see where the confusions stems from, so I wanted to fix that immediately. Even if you disagree (and you absolutely have the legal right to continue saying stuff like that all you like), I hope you can understand that my offense wasn’t necessarily on the behalf of the people you were targeting. Does that make at least a little more sense to you?

Sparkling Sand Baby says:

Re: Re: Re:8 suicide?

Listen: this is the internet.

If you are here as a substitute for therapy, get OFF THE FUCKING INTERNET RIGHT NOW!

Internet<out patient talk therapy, ok?

So, supposing for example, that I had a relative who had wrapped a plastic bag around her head, and ate a big bullet, while drunk, and overdosing on pain pills, because her sons were police officers in a city that is extensively dicumented in the records as highly political and corrupt, and that utilizes police to gang stalk people, I probably wouldnt talk about that to complete fucking strangers/profilers/psycho-sadists/CVE terrorist manufacturers/cowardly undercover cops/and forensic psychologists who are disguised as AC commenters online, bhull242.

Nor would I expect those shit flinging apes to respect my feelz(I think I have demonstrated that in fact, they dont, nor would I ever want them too.)

Keeping in mind of course that police gang stalking is a two way street, for example, and of course, the analogy above nope, never happened.

Take that shit to a therapists office, or any of the many suicide help lines if you are so inclined.

I personally believe in evolution, and natural selection, and especially a persons right to deselect from evolution; a persons right to choose suicide, or assisted suicide at any point in their lives, because our society is simply not a good one to live in, because of the exact religioys-tribal-sectarian violence and immorality disguised as morality, and hidden in secular law that I am on the record shitting all over.

That society is evolution in its purest form, herds of sheep, led by slightly more clever, murderous apes who all balance funny hats, turbans,and beanies on their heads, and who have sparkling white collars(wool in the winter), because they get others to do the deselecting for them in one way or another.

So, of those who are triggered, maybe they should get the help they need, and leave the internet alone for awhile; or move to a better society if they can.

As you know, people who gang stalk others online, and who organize to target individuals, these do in fact state in hundreds of thousands of online comments, videos, podcasts and blog posts that there are only three possible outcomes of OGS:

a)target gets arrested,

b) target gets 51-50d, or some other gray area high policing subversion of law, or

c) target commits suicide/dies unusual death.

So, yeah, you might have noticed that the word meatball gives me flashbacks to that final scene from the Sopranos. WHACK!

So generally, I avoid cooking shows, and on the rare occasion that I see an ad for Chef Boyardee® canned meatballs and that shitpasta, and I get triggered, and contemplate offing myself, I usually just dont do it, because I know those are NOT REAL MEATBALLS.

re: I thought I made it clear weeks ago that I agreed gang stalking was a real thing

No, you never said that gang stalking is real, not once until a couple days ago, because you were too busy trying to fit in/concur with trolls/catch the second hand whiff of other shitposters humor/snark/smears/slander, shat like an elevator fart in between a discussion I was trying to initiate as they were derailing this topic, and that acknowlegement on your part.

If Im wrong, feel free to show me where you did that, and,I will make amends.

But you are very incorrect that it is not organized, because it is highly organized in most instances.

It’s western religious orders, with wealth and power, abusing it at every opportunity, not least of which is community policing which has legitimized organized mob activity, working hand in hand with corrupt police/institutional practices.

But also, K4 mobs have surged since 1993, and so, its no longer just old white guys with power doing it, because its now more prevalent in every umbrella community and tribe.

And all of it is backed by weaponized, punitive psychology, which for now at least, is losing its edge on discrediting and derailing victims of these provably institution wide practices.

We see that quite clearly in mass shooter cases too, as we link the individuals and agencies involved to community policing elements, and the database/socmed/online-offline connections.

You might enjoy reading about the El Paso shooter, Patrick Crusius, to see how deep the rabbit-hole of narrative control goes, by design:

Without irony, the guys dad worked with a colleague of the CIAs “poisoner-in-chief” Dr. Sydney Gottlieb.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 suicide?

Good lord, why are you so triggered by my explanation for one of several reasons I find that sort of thing distasteful and would prefer you stop it? Jeezus…

Look, nothing I do can stop you from saying that sort of thing if you really want to that badly. I personally believe it is stupid, wrong, hurtful, unnecessary, unhelpful, and pointless unless your intent is to hurt people (which is its own problem), but I can’t actually stop or anyone else from doing so anyway.

What I can do is explain why I have a problem with it and both call out and flag every instance of that sort of talk that I find, which I do for everyone, and it is the only time I do that sort of thing incessantly. You may not like it, but since I don’t like what you’re doing either, it seems like fair play to me.

Seriously, though, why are you so goddamned sensitive to criticism over tone? It wouldn’t be derailing you at all if you just ignored it or stopped doing that. The only reaction I want is for you to be just slightly more civil, but I can understand if you just ignore me. What I don’t understand is why you’re so mad about it.

And for the record, I wasn’t speaking on my own behalf re:victims of suicide. I just know some people who have experienced losing someone to suicide, and I can empathize with them. (And given your opinion on psychology, I’m not sure what you’re expecting a therapist to do, anyway.)

But sheesh, considering how defensive you are about gang stalking—the results of which can include (among other things) depression and/or suicide—one would thing you’d be slightly more sympathetic or understanding of those who have experienced such things in their lives.

At any rate, when I say not to talk about suicide in that manner, I’m not defending anyone per se. I’m just asking for what I consider to be the most basic and minimum amount of decency. So even if you disagree with my opinion, I’d appreciate it if you stop characterizing it as “defending AI chatbots”, alright? Because that is absolutely not what I’m doing.

As for that bit about trying to fit in, that’s kind of the opposite of what autistic people tend to do. Most of us couldn’t care less about doing that. Everything I said was entirely based on my true opinions and observations.

I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree about just how much of gang stalking is organized, at least for now. Again, I’m sorry for the misunderstanding of each other’s points. My intention from the start was just to discuss the organized part, not the gang stalking. I might have to dig through my old posts to find the exact words I used, but I recall saying something along the lines of “that doesn’t prove that it was a conspiracy rather than just a bunch of people being stupid” or something. Maybe I didn’t say the words “I believe gang stalking exists”, but I thought that I’d implied it.

But fine. It may have been a misunderstanding. After all, for a while, I had thought the words “gang stalking” only included instances where there is some actual organization behind it, which is why I didn’t explicitly say that I believe gang stalking was real earlier. And I did say that I believe that at least some instances had no evidence of any sort of gang stalking involved, organized or not (and I stand by that), so I suppose that could have left the impression that I was saying gang stalking doesn’t exist at all even though my point was that those particular instances did not appear to involve gang stalking, nor did I see any evidence linking gang stalking (again, organized or otherwise) to mass shootings.

Again, though, since we’ve apparently been talking past each other in circles for the past few weeks, I’m going to take a break on arguing about individual instances and how organized gang stalking is (and I do acknowledge that some instances are or are likely to be organized gang stalking). For now, I’d like to start by just seeing where we agree on before we talk about where we disagree, if only to avoid a repeat where we apparently think we’re being clear on something that we’re not and so wind up arguing over something we don’t disagree on. Is that fair? It’s only temporary, and my intention is just to avoid wasting even more time on stupid stuff.

Safespaces NOW! says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking

Thank you for acknowleging that organized gang stalking is a real thing, and not at all delusional in basis.

Thats important, because some day a victim of this practice will Google “Techdirts position on gang stalking,” and find this conversation, and validation by you, a purpirted member of TD community.

Your acknowlegement of that today, and this wifer discusdion might save a life tomorrow, or years from now. Does thst clarify my position in suicide references?

AND: you do realize that my analogy up there about the good woman who blew her brains out is actually a real story, dont you?

But because people like you, imposing autistic/legalistic/arbitrarily enforced rulesets to online discussion between in-groups who use #safespace pre-vetted litmus tests such as your own, versus just skipping over content that bothers you, you are in fact, in the wrong place, too impaired to do what the rest of humanity does when it encounters the reality that some in out-groups endure.

Or, you/they are actually just selfish/self centered immature crybullies, presuming everyone should react to harsh realities exactly as you do, instead of applying reason and objective non-emotional rational responses to #badwerdz, and thus, on the wrong forum.

Go to those forums where every conversation is loaded with self-reflecting mirrors, and get the help and consolation you need there.

Again, go get the help you need because this is a tech blog, not a poor me feelz session about autistic peoples perceptions of suicide. Even to havevthat fiscusdion here is a total derail

And so, if my desire for a professed coward that offers zero substance, and only bullies and harassed, and that is likely a chatbot bothers you, then you need help that I cant give you, because you have now essentially requested that I live by rules set by your clinical insanity or emotional impairment.

And, your flagging my posts while defending a cowardly chatbot, is itself an act of bullying.

So, yeah, I hope that chatbot goes and kills itself, because what your actual belief is, is that substanceless cowards and bots feelings take precedence mine, and over both real human interaction, and the time it takes to establish communication.

The bot/agency troll/shitbag has contributed not a single link, or discussion point, ever. None of them do. And, as I frequently note, they are frequently professional derailers, NGO/ADL, intel, military, police affilliated professional trolls

Again, you fail at nuance and this is important on many levels, which I dont think you can grasp.

So, because I simply wont continue to educate you on these fine points of what I consider toxic elements of your personality, I will simply state again, that you are essentially a police state enablerbecause of your perspective about the rights of chatbots and timesucking ACs. over the rights of people who actually put something forwards.

Now: about my actual position on suicide, it doesnt beling in this discussion and, I stated that I am 100% for the right of any person to end their life any way they see fit, short of harming others.

And, I am 100% against TDs flag-a-post system which is ripe for abuse by bots, NGOs, PR firms, military trolls, the Fraternal Order of Police, and other highly organized and literal gangs of online speech stalkers who easily manipulate people like you against people like me.

It truly is an echo chamber, by design. And that design, literally highly organized and integrated as such a mechanism.

Now, if you simply said that talk of suicide bothers you instead of some nebulous,we that would have been a different discussion, but the terms of your args were not phrased that way at all.

Lastly, many mass shooters stated directly that they were being gang stalked.

Myron May, Gavin Long, and many others said as much. The Ferguson activists, and Darren Seals specifically, mentioned specifically being stopped and pulled over by a group of ten men who he described as a task force, or undercover/off duty cops, who he believed were stalking him, and shortly thereafter, he is alleged to have started his car on fire as he shot himself in the head.

bhull, those men stated that Seals had “chose the wrong friends,” which he posted on Twitter before he died.

So, because some of these men( xtreme outliers on a Bell curve of those beingvstalked this way) felt a need to take up arms against these hidden cowardly community policing practices while others killed themselves in bizarre suicides bhull, there is ample evidence of a link, and actual, real conspiracies that were in play against these men, and hundreds of thousands of others.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking

…I don’t think that post conceded that organized gang stalking is real. I mean, there are a few cases that happened, but I’m not sure how any of that post could be interpreted that way. Well, whatever. I think that some of them are delusions, but some aren’t. Like I have said, I analyze these things on an individual basis.

Regarding the suicide thing, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I still contend that it serves no legitimate purpose, and I intend to keep flagging that sort of talk. As this is a community-moderated site, I can do that, though obviously my lone flag wouldn’t be close to enough to have any actual effect.

Incidentally, saying that you truly wish that these “AI chatbots” would kill themselves seems particularly dumb to me, even assuming that they are just chatbots and not humans. First of all, aren’t they supposedly there to provoke you and derail the discussion? It sure seems like you’re giving them what they want, at least to me. Also, how would that even work? Literally the only things a chatbot can do are read and chat, and it’s not alive to begin with, so how could a chatbot kill itself. Finally, that whole thing sounds about as useful as loudly swearing at your monitor. Impotent wailing that accomplishes absolutely nothing. Basically, on your own terms, it seems completely and utterly pointless to me. Is it to make you feel better? Well, to turn something you said earlier against you, this isn’t your private therapist, nor is this your house. Most of us want to have a relatively civil discussion, maybe have a few laughs or poke at some trolls. We aren’t interested in witnessing your impotent tantrums.

And I’m quite familiar with nuance. For example, talking about someone who committed suicide, suicide rates, discussing the causes or impacts of suicide, or even quoting someone else who told another to kill themselves… Those are all perfectly fine. Additionally, simply insulting someone, particularly if they insulted you first, can be perfectly fine. Telling someone you don’t like them, want them off this site, don’t want to speak with them, think they’re terrible, see no value in what they say… Those can all be perfectly acceptable. There are even circumstances where, “I’ll kill you!” or, “Go f$&k yourself!” (with or without censorship) is fine. That said, when it comes to telling someone that they should kill themselves, they should die, or that it would be better if they were dead, I’ve considered many, many use cases—all the ones I can think of and all the ones that I’ve seen or heard—and, in my judgement, none of them are what I consider to be acceptable in standard, casual, or even slightly crude discourse. Some toxicity is acceptable, but there’s a line, and that sort of talk crosses that line in my view. I also don’t consider it to be much of a burden, as that sort of talk adds nothing to the discussion, and it’s not all that common in conversations I’ve observed. And that’s especially the case where my opinion isn’t the final say, so if I’m unusual in my perspective, then there will be no consequences for the speaker, anyway.

Now, if you simply said that talk of suicide bothers you instead of some nebulous,we that would have been a different discussion, but the terms of your args were not phrased that way at all.

Couple of things. First, your original rant, the one I responded to, assumed that I was saying I was triggered. Now you’re saying that it would be different if that was my argument? Second, do you recall saying something about how much personal information I revealed in this chat? Has it ever occurred to you that I actually am one of those people and am just hiding it because it’s personal information that I don’t want to share with strangers online? Now, borrow a page from GLOMAR, I’m not confirming or denying whether or not that’s the case, but you should probably keep that under consideration.

So, let’s say for the sake of argument that I have thoughts of suicide or something and that I would therefore be extremely bothered by someone saying someone else should kill themself. How would your response to my request/argument change?

But seriously, how can I make it any clearer that my asking you not to tell anyone—not even AI chatbots—to kill themselves is not a defense of AI chatbots (alleged or real)? I’m not protecting their feelings. All I’m asking for is a bare minimum of decency to everyone reading this discussion. I’m not asking you to shut up and just let them abuse you without retort; I’m only asking you to avoid using one particular sort of toxic statement. Go ahead and insult them; say you hate them; get mad at them; ridicule them. That’s all fine. Why is it too much to ask for you to not use that particular sort of talk when you have so many other toxic ways to respond that I’m saying are fine? And even if you think that’s too much, why get so mad when I say it upsets me, even if only via empathy, and ask you to stop? As you and I both know, nothing I can say or do can possibly stop you if you want to continue. I have no power to remove your posts at all, either; the only thing I can do is vote to have them hidden so that one would have to click a link to see them, and even that would require the assistance of others. Why does this bother you so much?

I can tell you right now that a lot of people who are victims of gang stalking are not going to appreciate that sort of talk. Like I said, many of these victims are suicidal. You say this is all for their benefit, but you speak of suicide so cavalierly and so frequently for no reason other than to lash out at people—even if they are themselves unkind—that I question whether you truly understand what they go through.

R/O/G/S....IFIED says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking


First: bhull242, I remember when you first signed up at TD to comment, one year ago.

My absolute first thought, based on context, was that you were establishing an “online profile,” the most basic step any intel troll takes online.

SO, maybe you are real, and maybe not.

My role in protecting Americans, and democracy, and others is to engage with your types.

Sure, Techdirts Santa has given you (a poor triggered,Aspergers patient )ten presents. But I have even fed dogs, and bad dogs at that.

Dog meat is edible in my place, and preferred over batmeat to be sure, considering the recent outbreaks of disease in ML China, which I chronicle elsewhere.

Speech policing in any form is repugnant, and indicative of repression, and short of imminent and actual threatsis repugnant to not only the first amendment, but also to open discourse.

So, where I abide, here is a real life example.

You: stop telling me to kill myself! My speech picing is,imperative upon democracy!

Guard at checkpoint, taking you temperature so that you dont spread a toxic virus:

Listen, kid, your feelz are not even considered here, becausebpublic asking you to STFU, and submit to a thermometer reading.

You: but that violates my rights to question you about suicide, before the fact! And, you are not respecting my feelz about the words "go fucking kill yourself! ”

Guard: (dialing Chinese 911 now )
Yeah…we have a special snowflake….er….sparklng sand baby here, who wants to engage about snowflake rights, during a real, verified outbreak where people ar dying.

Police: arrest that stupid mother fucker

Dear Sparkling Sand Grain: your feelz, v contagion, = please kill yourself, because argument is a luxury against plague, , and your feelz an absolute obstacle to public health and safety.


Waawaawahhahaha: my butt hurts! Someone online doesnt think my feelz is gud! Someone online thinks my ASPERGERS gets in the way of my humanity.

What kind of POS would victimizee that way? !

So, as,a time sucking derailer, I sort of have to leave you alone ow, as other TD folks ask the question “why is bhull 242 such a time sucking selfish troll, constantly reffering to its feelz about the phrase, “go fucking kill yourself ” rathe than.engagibg with materials about how international agencies /NGOs /FBIetal gang stalk eople?

Yeah, if you answered “timesucker” you hit ROGS Bingo.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking

Speech policing in any form is […] repugnant to […] the first amendment […]

So, guess I’m going to have to educate you on the First Amendment, then.

The FA only restricts government action (or government enforcement of private action) that would restrict free speech. Neither Techdirt—a private entity—nor I—a private citizen—can do anything short of a lawsuit that would be remotely capable of infringing on your FA right to free speech. (Same goes for freedom of the press.)

Not only that, but what I’m doing has no legal effect whatsoever on your ability to say anything, and even the worst things I can do to you are to annoy you, waste your time, and (if others feel similarly and take action accordingly) hide your comments so that someone has to click a link to view them. That’s not exactly restricting you from saying anything you want, nor does it stop anyone else from seeing it if they want to.

No one ever said anything about calling the police, either.

Look, you can say whatever you like. However, I have the exact same right, and that means that I can tell you to stop using that sort of talk all I want. Free speech =/= consequence-free speech, and that includes the possible consequence that others (such as myself) will respond by saying that you should cut that out and/or flagging your comment to be hidden. After all, that is my FA right.

As for the bit about “open discourse”, “open” does not mean “unrestricted”, “unmoderated”, “toxic”, or “not even remotely close to civil”. All I’m doing is telling you that you should not tell people they should kill themselves. That is not a burdensome restriction on you even if you agree to that. You could still say that you wish they were dead, for example. I am actually giving you a lot of leeway.

And in the end, I still can’t actually stop you from saying it. Heck, other people still respond to your comments, and I’ve addressed certain issues in addition to that particular kind of talk. So if my goal was to derail, I’d be doing a very poor job of it.

As for the others’ feelings, they’re probably thinking I’m wasting my time since it’s unlikely that you’ll ever stop, but we’ve enforced the same restrictions on ourselves in the past, so I doubt that they actually feel all that differently about that sort of thing. Not to mention the fact that most of them apparently feel that engaging you on the substance of your comments is also a massive waste of time given how few of them have even tried lately. I’m not saying I feel the same; that’s just my observation about the whole thing.

And then there’s that bit about my start on Techdirt. Somehow, I doubt that you were actually paying me that much attention at the time. You appeared in none of the threads I commented in up until several weeks ago, so I highly doubt you were paying that close attention to my comments in the threads at the time. At any rate, I will repeat what I’ve said since the first time you suggested I was less than genuine: when I have something to say, I say it. I don’t care what others think of me. If they like it, great! If not, oh well. If they insult me, fine; I can handle it. I might still ask them to explain or correct them, but I know better than to take it too personally. I engage with people honestly, and try to treat others as genuine or having good motivations for as long as reasonably possible, longer than most would bother. You’re free to think I’m lying or a chatbot or something, but that won’t change the fact that I’m not; I’m a genuine human being with genuine thoughts and feelings speaking honestly.

Finally, I just want to quickly mention that you keep telling others (myself included) to STFU, and yet when I tell you to just tone it down very slightly in a specific way, all of a sudden I’m policing your speech, infringing on your FA rights, and impeding open discourse? Do you see the irony? And you also complain about the emotional effect that gang stalking has on victims, yet you seem to not have any qualms whatsoever inflicting the same sort of damage on others. How is that not being a hypocrite? Is it because you think you’re “protecting America, and democracy”? Well, here’s the thing: a lot of those agencies and NGOs that you hold responsible for OGS and a lot of mass shootings and terrorist attacks think that they’re doing the same thing. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Dave Mabus, Ghostbuster says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking, freudenschade

bhull242, let me first state that, more and more, I like who you are, online, and believe you are plausibly trying to understand this issue.

Then, note that I will revisit your mischaracterization of my intentions shortly, to whit, your presumptions/delusions that you are going to have to educate you on the First Amendment

Good luck with that, for reasons I will get to later, while,I encourage you to continue to educate yourself on that topic.

You have good thinking skills, and a relatively fair mind, and appear to be truly concerned, in a personal way, about civil speech online, unlike those other guys and gals who routinely flamebait and derail here, starting with that douchebag from England who called me an incel, which is what started this conversation between you and I many weeks ago.

And, also, I forgot to mention, you posted a bullet list somewhere in this derailed morass about points we agree on, like:

  • the incel movement was started by an LGBT woman, and that movement mainly maligns males, and is infinitely related to mass shootings now, as it is inextricably linked to the LGBT community.
  • that gang stalking is a real thing, not a delusion at all
  • etc (if you have that list, I generally sign off on it)

So, yes, I agree with you nearly 90% and that we have come to a consensus between ourselves with the sticking points being that

1- you do not believe that community policing, high policing, and targeting of individuals is organized at any level, or that

2- CVE programs target and then radicalize individuals online and off with bizarre PsyOps; or that

3- I should never ever tell chatbots, or toxic AC trolls who never comment on the actual articles above this morass and who may or may not be AI chatbots; who may, or may not be Intel agency /CIA /DHS /JTRIG /NGO /private contractors masquerading online as innocent TD commenters and civilians- to go fucking kill themselves as they target and harass me, or others online.

Is that more or less correct?

So, I will try to respect you from now on as regards that sensitive issue of yours, specifically and never use that phrase directed in conversations with you, if:

  • you never use the words: troll, trolling, rant, ranting, deluded, delusional, hypocritical, hypocrite, fat, ugly, stupid; racist, incel, snowflake, Nazi, Republican can, right -winger, or meatball anywhere in these forums, because all of those words make me want to die, because they are simply provably innaccurate, and facts are important, without which we could never make a point about anything.
  • in your case, there is no proof that my phrase has actually caused you to feel suicidal, other than taking your word for it, or that the phrase has caused you to drink bleach, or leap off a rooftop, so, devoid of proof you are asking me to accept your claim on good faith which is antithetical to both reason, and my secularism.
  • word policing is antithetical to open discourse if in fact that open discourse is NOT open to all, but is in fact a preacher to the choir, or other closed loop communication, or an influence campaign, or trance formation by a cult aka a political -sectarian KUMBAYA jam.

The initial shitposter and faith based derailer Wendy Cocksoft, was the exact person who called me an incel, despite my proclivities to being 100% completely fucking satisfied with my amazing sex life, spanning decades, and somehow, I didnt kill myself over it, while others have.

Why is that?

Let me start with your confusion that others routinely make here: that I or others think we have first amendment rights here at TD.

Unlike yourself, I took over two years of first amendment courses in college. I studied libel, slander, and defamation for years.

And, I never, ever said that TD is actually first amendment friendly, or that I have,special snowflake, sparkling sand baby, basement dwellers rights here to say whatever the fuck I want. And, I seldom say whatever the fuck I want here, because I know the boundaries.

But others dont, and TDs community routinely allows all of those hurtful epithets up there and more, at times with TD community members going out of their way to invent new, potentially hurtful epithets.

So, what I have said, is that TD is one of the most speech tolerant forums online, up to certain parameters which, I believe, need to move forwards.

Thats what I have said, without any commentary or confusion about first amendment rights or protections here.

Now, about others , TD regulars are a partisan quipping bunch from the (D) establishment, and not prone to yielding any floor to newcomers.

OH! How hard they work to destroy actual left wing commentary, or dissent, as exhibited by the ADL spying on activists scandal from 1993-2003, which became the model of the defacto surveillance state we have today, with fanatical privacy rapists across the political divide embracing the toys and tactics of a full blown police state(and toleration of the Mossad training US police in the politics of othering)

All that said, I ask you to take a look at ritual defamationin context to the words above that hurt my feelz:

You might have noticed that I wrote about that exact topic ritual defamation at my blog, and, shortly thereafter, the actual, real right wing began to use that term in their commentary about Democrats, and in the assumption of Brett Kavanaugh to the SCOTUS.

So, I am quite aware that words have consequences, and that framing of the issue put Kavanaugh on the bench, because framing is what I do, and I do it well, one crazy internet conversation after another.

Now it’s unlikely that you’ll ever stop is a fair assessment, because as you and others here in the community have noted,

words have consequences, right?

And I simply asked moons ago for help raising awareness of organized gang stalking.

The problem here though, is that those who mob people online, and then hunt them down, and send squad cars to their homes over bad words online, are a critical component of the organized gang stalking mechanism of community policing and these find this tactic to be beneficial at many levels.

So, it is NOT merely organic mobs arising from the social slime, but is in fact, a well orchestrated effort, by many groups that seemingly are opposed to each other, uniting across the divide, to overlook, and tolerate bad behavior expressed by groups, targeted at individuals.

Lastly, what damage am I somehow inflicting on anyone, anywhere ? How is that even possible?

I am an individual who thinks the narratives of our culture are themselves quite damaging, and harmful, but unlike MSM, or even TD (which frequently uses racist ADL boilerplate language in its commentaries), I tolerate bad words, and I use sometimes loud, even aggressive propaganda techniques, as do commenters above.

I actually agree with those Svengalis on one point: the way to combat bad speech is with better speech, and education

Funny how they whoever those Svengalis are, missed that.

And, despite anyones wishes, I continue to get thankful comments from people who find affirmation in my (unpaid ) awareness campaign.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking, freudenschade

A couple things I want to address now, since they’re quick, before going into detail later:

First, among things we agree on, you included this:

the incel movement was started by an LGBT woman, and that movement mainly maligns males, and is infinitely related to mass shootings now, as it is inextricably linked to the LGBT community.

Just a quick clarifications. I do, 100% agree that the incel movement was—at least to the extent a movement can be started by a single person—started by a bisexual or lesbian woman. As far as I can tell, that seems indisputable. That the movement mainly maligns males, I don’t entirely agree, as I believe it also equally maligns women, though in a very different manner. (Or maybe I’m misunderstanding the definition of maligns. At the very least, I don’t disagree that it maligns men.) As for “inextricably linked”, I kinda have a few issues with that phrasing. Specifically, I don’t believe there’s a substantial link in the sense that a majority of lesbians, bisexual men, bisexual women, gay men, transmen, or transwomen are members of or connected to the incel community, nor do I believe that a majority of incels are members of the LGBT community (in fact, based on what I can tell, the vast majority of incels are heterosexual males, though I should clarify that even among celibate or virgin males, incels make up a tiny minority). I don’t believe their ideologies (to the extent the LGBT community has one) are inextricably linked. I also don’t believe—and I don’t know whether this is something you believe or not—that the LGBT community created the incel community with the purpose of trapping, maligning, or harassing males, specifically. There is some connection given the founder, but I wouldn’t quite call that a substantial link.

Another point of agreement was:

that gang stalking is a real thing, not a delusion at all

To clarify, I think that some cases are delusions (after all, there are cases of just about everything that are delusions), but by-and-large, gang stalking does exist and presents real dangers, so I suppose that I can say that I agree with that.

Next, among points we disagree on, you included this:

you do not believe that community policing, high policing, and targeting of individuals is organized at any level

That’s only partially accurate. Where we disagree on this is the extent to which it is organized, which ones are organized, and which NGOs or agencies are involved in the organizing and which ones are involved in which gang stalking incident. (Or at least there isn’t sufficient evidence to support that.) I also believe that there isn’t sufficient evidence to support the claim that the community policing on TD is organized. Part of this is Occam’s Razor, part of it is Hitchen’s Razor, and part of it is because I know about how troll psychology works and how bullies work, and so I’d be surprised if every incident of gang stalking was organized. However, to say that I don’t believe any of it is organized at all or at any level is not quite accurate. Some cases of organized gang stalking almost certainly do exist. Again, we largely differ on the extent, depth, and particulars of it, along with the amount of proof needed to support such a claim.

There was also this:

CVE programs target and then radicalize individuals online and off with bizarre PsyOps

Again, this appears to be occurring somewhat, at least. Or rather, whatever the method employed, there are some programs designed to manufacture terrorists. Where we differ on is whether this has occurred with any known terrorist attacks that have actually occurred (as opposed to more sting-like operations), as well as how much evidence there is and what is required.

Basically, my view is a bit more nuanced than implied.

Ali Abuminah says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking, freudenschad

Compliments to you, bhull242. You are not just insightful, you are engaged .

Victims of gang stalking all over the world are cheering right now, not because you are a good person; not because you acknowledge their plight; but because you are a dedicated, and patient person with a genuine quest for deeper understanding.

So, let me verify my claims yet again, about the bizarre activities of intel agencies who stalk, harass, intimidate, blackmail, coerce, and discredit targeted individuals, and especially who target gay peoplewith specialized targeting and harassment:

Then, because time is limited, try to draw,a link between these associated agencies, and everything I have claimed here :

Squad 8200☞Operations Talpion and Technion ☞Silicon Valley startups, and the miscreants who do bad shit there ☞ bizarre surveillance and gang stalking related to things like the ☞NSO hack☞that provably targeted whole groups and individuals

It is, indeed, all related, and Masnick, et al have written about it, but refuse to put the shoe/high heel where it fits (use your imagination ).

So, first, not all minds are alike, and you have a good mind for editorial tasks re: kinda have a few issues with that phrasing

The historic battle between all writers, and all editors (in journalism ) has been exactly what you stated there. In fact, a good editor could write a book and title it: I Kinda Have a Few Issues With That Phrasingand all editors,around the world would chuckle, knowing they have said exactly that at least once in their career.

But in journalism, the well known cannard of remember who your subscribers are is coded speech, and I wont get into that right now, but suffice it to say that I know who they once were and have found other subscribers who arent them.

Second, I refuse to be edited by the One Percent, and its western white people, or their minions of speech policing trained minions and minnionettes from the, K 4 tribal -sectarian folds, cuz, reasons I have stated repeatedly, including the fact that the religious -tribalists train in Israel to squash all dissent, and this, paid for by the ADL and thus, its dominionist troll armies control speech in the west, and they do it via gang stalking speakers, mych as,we,see in the above link, where the IDF does that too. .

Thats why I used the example nym Jared Loughners Literature in one of these threads. I will actually refer back to these threads for my own writing at a later point.

Now, yes, I,wish I had your whole bullet list, it was good. The rest is semantics, and your issues, primarily with things you simply do not know about, and then, your sense of logic rejecting them because my words and concepts are too sharp, glaring, or bright.

Yes, sure, Occam this, Hitchens that -but as you read that story above about Palestinians being wiretapped, surveilled, and bizarrely blackmailed about theircsexuality…..well, thats,where Ochams Razor of CVE is more likely than less likely necessary to understand these cases.

Hitchens, and Occams presume legality and bi -polarity, whereas Ochams [sic ] throws all that out the window, in the middle of the night, then pisses on it; then slices its throat.

CVE and the religious ponerologists who deploy it is designed to appeal to the status,quo who all sigh gee, Im glad it wasnt me; and CVE is designed to create terrorists, by dehumanizing human beings.

Hopefully, you will rethink those AC trolls too.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:17 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking, freudens

For what it’s worth, I have enjoyed at least some portions of our discussion, and I do believe there is some merit to continuing even if we ultimately never agree on certain issues. It’s why I try to debate even obvious trolls with whom I’d never agree with at times (which, FTR, I’m not saying is the case here; although you have engaged in behavior I’d characterize as clear examples of trolling, in this particular instance and several others, I believe you are being completely genuine); sometimes the debate alone can lead to some interesting experiences, and sometimes at least one of us may learn something new.

Now, while you’re right about my general desire for precision would be particularly useful for an editorial job and largely being semantics, in this particular case, I have a couple of good reasons for doing this. First and foremost, for several weeks, we wasted a lot of time arguing and attacking each other due to some misunderstandings on both of our parts. In trying to clarify things and adding some precision, I’m just trying to avoid a repeat. Semantics can be important at times; it’s good for both sides to have a clear understanding of what the other side is and isn’t arguing. Additionally, I’m trying to establish a record of precisely which things I agree or disagree with. This is so that, in future, I can a) point to this as evidence that I’m trying to remain honest and genuine as well as being fairly open and b) prevent things I’ve said from being mischaracterized.

Basically, I’m trying to avoid future arguments over misunderstandings. I’d rather get the semantic issues out of the way first so that everyone can focus on the substance. It’s why, in the past, I have asked you to clarify your claims when I perceive some ambiguity or vagueness and refused to “just Google it” because I wanted to hear what you believe and think rather than some other person. I don’t want to put words into your mouth.

Now, I have some issues with this:

your sense of logic rejecting them because my words and concepts are too sharp, glaring, or bright

but I believe what you meant was that we disagree on what logical tools and burdens of proof are appropriate for these claims (e.g. whether I should apply Occam’s Razor and/or Hitchen’s Razor), which is definitely true, so I won’t quibble. For the record, though, it’s not that my sense of logic keeps me from understanding your words and concepts, per se. I’m just using the logical tools I have as I understand them in order to determine whether or not to accept your claims as true.

At any rate, I thank you for the compliments, particularly my being insightful, engaged, dedicated, and patient (which are things I very much strive for) and that I am well suited for editorial work. For what it’s worth, I’ve appreciated your dedication to what you feel (reasonably) is a very important issue that should be acknowledged, and I can also appreciate that you can be civil when you feel it proper. Dedication to the truth is a valuable skill for a journalist, certainly. I’ll discuss the substance of your claims later (this weekend, probably) as I have some work I need to do today, but I thought I should probably say something to let you know I’m paying attention and explain my reasoning for being so particular.

P.S. I’ve asked about this dozens of times, and I even tried looking it up but got nothing relevant for some reason, but what exactly is “K4”? I know you’ve explained what it stands for, but would you mind summarizing what it is and how it relates to your claims? I don’t need too much detail; I doubt that you’d even need more than a paragraph or two, and probably less. Again, just a brief explanation is all I ask.

(Also, while I don’t expect an answer for this, I also really want to know why they decided to take four terms starting with the letter c, replace those four c’s with k’s, and then abbreviate it all as K4. Why not just call it/them C4? What do they have against the letter c? It really bugs the hell out of me.)

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking, freudenschade

Now, a bit about your “proposal”, which I presume was intended to make a point.

you never use the words: troll, trolling, rant, ranting, deluded, delusional, hypocritical, hypocrite, fat, ugly, stupid; racist, incel, snowflake, Nazi, Republican can, right -winger, or meatball anywhere in these forums, because all of those words make me want to die, because they are simply provably innaccurate, and facts are important, without which we could never make a point about anything.

Well, I haven’t used the words “fat”, “snowflake”, or “meatball” at all on this site (I am not even aware of what the non-literal meaning of “meatball” is). I have said “rant” or “ranting”, but I’ve also used that in reference to myself, not just others, and I mostly use them to refer to lengthy comments, not necessarily in a negative fashion.

Regarding “incel”, since the incel community has been a topic of discussion, I don’t think it would be proper to completely avoid using it. That said, I can agree not to use that term to refer to you or anyone else on this site unless they self-identify as such. (Not that I had been doing so before.)

With “Republican” or “rightwinger”, I haven’t used those terms really in our discussion, and I’m pretty sure that at least some regular commenters actually self-identify as one or the other. Again, though, I only use those terms in reference to those who are confirmed to be such, or if the discussion involves politics (or, say, comparing the relative differences between the two), so I doubt it would be an issue in our discussions.

I could continue with the others, though they have major issues that I can’t quite agree to it, but I wonder if you understand the imbalance between what I’m asking and what you’re asking. I’m asking you not to use one particular phrase. You’re giving me a whole list of words not to use. I offered alternatives that could get your disdain across equally well; you did not. My request doesn’t preclude any real topics from discussion (I expressly said that discussing suicide generally or offering a story or opinion about a particular instance in the past are entirely acceptable); yours precludes a number of topics, including the incel community (which, by the way, was a topic you brought up in the first place), white supremacy, political parties and ideologies, many politicians, racism, and internet trolling. I allowed for some nuance (see my earlier examples of an alternative and some topics concerning suicide, and I also allow quoting), while yours leaves no room for nuance. I said that my reasoning was based on inherent offensiveness and the possibility that it might dig into old wounds;* your reasoning was that you claimed that they might make you want to die (which is just silly, especially for words like “Republican”, and they aren’t horribly offensive to most people) and that all of them were provably false, which a) isn’t true for some, like “ugly” or “snowflake”, which are inherently subjective and are therefore opinions, and b) kinda misses the point, since provably false facts are best responded to with denials, counterarguments, and evidence, not a demand for silence; the thing I wanted out has no actual benefit to a discussion.

Also, the words “hypocrisy” and “hypocritical” are pretty important to a discussion; consistency is very important, and we don’t want double standards, right?

But then, I doubt that this was intended as a genuine offer, but rather to make a point about precluding certain things from an otherwise open discussion. However, as mentioned earlier, the two things are completely unequal. I was very careful to allow you a lot of alternatives and take nuance into account. I considered many scenarios in which the phrase might be used, and outside of quotes or such, I could find none that would benefit any discussion. It is also a rule we enforce amongst ourselves, too, so asking you to do the same isn’t unreasonable. Yours does none of those things. Many of the words you listed have also been things you yourself have said to others, while I have only used my condemned phrase when discussing it as objectionable. I took a very minimalist approach regarding what to exclude, while you clearly did not. I may be willing to not use certain terms when describing you, or a subset of those terms in this discussion, but asking me to not use all of those terms at all when you’re only agreeing not to use one phrase when addressing me specifically is rather unfair, don’t you think? If you were trying to say “exclude one thing, and what will stop you or anyone else from adding to it?”, well, I’d like to point you towards the slippery slope fallacy. I also said that I would only be firmly against that one thing and would…not outright condemn just about anything else.

That should also address the third point: what I am asking for does not actually preclude any topics of discourse and still allows for a number of hateful things to be said, even if I still find them to be distasteful and either un- or counterproductive. There is no reason to fear that my request or your following it will lead to “a preacher to the choir, or other closed loop communication, or an influence campaign, or trance formation by a cult aka a political -sectarian KUMBAYA jam”, nor should it lead to any imbalance to the discussion since everyone else follows that exact same rule, and I expressly said that responding in kind was acceptable in every other case.

I should also mention that I haven’t noticed much in the way of targeting or harassing you, but again, there are plenty of ways to respond to that without requesting that they commit suicide. You could even say that you wish they were dead, or that you feel they are a waste of a human being or intelligence or something. There are so many alternatives to attack your apparent harassers, and I am only asking that, in service to the discussion as a whole and basic human decency, you exclude one, maybe two, possible responses. I’m also not telling you what not to say in places other than Techdirt.

As for you having boundaries, if this is you holding back, I’d hate to see you unleashed.

*FTR, regarding the offensiveness to victims of suicide, I’d like to clarify a couple of things. First, as a reminder, I am neither confirming nor denying whether or not I or someone I am or was close to has or has had thoughts of suicide or actually attempted suicide. As you suggested earlier, I’m keeping that private. Since I’m not confirming or denying it, I am not claiming that “[your] phrase has actually caused [me] to feel suicidal” or any of that other stuff, and I don’t need to offer proof for something I’m not claiming to be true, nor do you need to just take my word for it. I may have, or I may not have. Either way, that’s my private personal info, and I’m not sharing it with some online stranger.

Second, my concern isn’t just for those who have or have had suicidal thoughts or have attempted suicide; it’s also for their loved ones as well as those who have lost a loved one to suicide. And sadly, there are a lot of them nowadays. If you’re going to tear into those emotional wounds, you should at least have a very good reason for it. You haven’t really offered one that even comes close to compensating for the negatives, and you certainly haven’t alleged that it actually adds any substance at all to this or any discussion.

Ochams Razor (sic ) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking, freudenschad

The head of the CIAs PsyOps torture program, Dr. Jame Mitchell has now confirmed that hecdoesvindeed threaten Guantanamo detainees with threats to slice their childrens throats with a razor.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking

I should also mention that you present nothing but a bare claim to suggest any link between gang stalking, mass murders, or these “bizarre suicides” and “cowardly community policing practices”.

Also, I’ve seen no substantial evidence of systemic or frequent abuse of Techdirt’s flagging system, and any issues are mitigated by the fact that it cannot be used to completely remove any posts, only to hide them. Removing posts still requires someone running Techdirt to personally have them removed, and that has only ever been done to pure spam ads. Additionally, this is a relatively small community, and most articles get well under 100 comments, and only one has ever reached or even gotten close to the thousands.

For these reasons, I have no significant issues with the community flagging system as implemented by Techdirt.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking

It’s Shiva Ayyadurai-level logic. Nobody is going to google "Techdirt’s opinion on gang stalking" any more than they’re going to google "Techdirt’s opinion on volcanic eruptions" or "Techdirt’s opinion on chocolate or vanilla" or "Techdirt’s opinion on GIF or JIF". There’s a collection of people who think it’s funny as fuck to harass a small site which they would readily claim "nobody would come here and read Masnick’s garbage" while demanding that the site dances to their whims. It’d be funny if it wasn’t so threadbare-level pathetic.

AC Liberation Front says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Techdirt online mobbing, gang stalking, freudenschade

Um, have your webmaster check your incoming search terms. Then, lets,have a conversation AC.

Then, maybe look at my face as I mock your freudenschade, because little by little we are exposing you, and others in the online PsyOps community. The fact that you two work together was an unexpected bonus, as,I have claimed for years that your type of ACs work in pairs.

And really, you guys have assraped that Shiva meme into the ground, and note that it hasnt caught on in the larger non-insular real world, even though I sided with TD on that issue.

Meanwhile, your allegiance to the US is questionable at best, because your two-by-two derailing technique directed at dissidents, and non -partisans here at TD is quite effective, and classic derailing, because, after all, I am on -topic with the article, and you are a shit flinging lesser ape.

As you might have noticed, clasdic gang stalking often entails the poluce, targeting business owners, and homeowners in a new type of real estatecred -lining . In fact, real estate us,at the center of much city and state spibsored gang stalking, as we see in the cases of Bob Deis in Stockton, CA, and Rick and Cindy Krlich in Ohio, and dozens more covered in the MSM.

You, and that other AC below my post (who in theory eats shit, if my post craps on it) are helping make my case.

Only problem is, on an ADL moderated blog®, you never know if its Russians, Israelis, Ukranians, or a Bronfman sponsored NGO from Toronto doing the derailing -theres just so many of you.

Or, one of the many well known online harassers like Rita Katz, and other Mossadi jihadis targeting #badwerdz in the name of dual nationalism:

For the record, I think Masnick is among the best tech -writing lawyers online, which is why I come here. But even you are

too stupid to notice that Tim Cushing wrote this article

Unfortunately, you are here too, and, with certainty, will ALWAYS stalk my posts, and do what you people do.

But at least theres progress, freudenschade troll, because you might note that even you acknowlege that there is as you say threadbare evidence and proof of gang stalking, and a couple other regular TD commenters too. Thats a start.

You just dont like that I name names, and specifically, your beloved Mossadi jihadis and Israelified rabid zionists behind much/all of it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

But even you are too stupid to notice that Tim Cushing wrote this article

It was rhetorical, you mundungus. You’ve hung around this site enough to know that Masnick gets the blame no matter who writes the article. Congratulations for having a level of idiocy to rival out_of_the_blue, by the by.

Tweedle Dee says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:moron

Or are you Tweedle Dum? I cant tell the difference between you and that other AC.

But by the by you both resemble an alchemists evil homunculi, cojuredvfrom batshit.

Maybe its your matching greasy beards, or, your Golem level rhetorical flourishes
like racist! and proof or GTFO, or my favorite frothy spew from your keyboard #antishemititicistcalisms!

Hmm…your types are justderailment 101. Have a look at this oxymoron, you moron:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."

  • Edward Bernays
bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:moron

I… don’t think that that’s an oxymoron. An oxymoron would be something like “deafening silence”, “he had nothing to say, and he said it,” “cruel to be kind”, “love-hate relationship”, “tragic comedy”, “foolish wisdom”, “seriously funny”, “open secret”, or “military intelligence”. (That last example was just a joke.) I don’t see anything oxymoronic in that quote at all. Maybe you meant “paradox”? That still seems like a stretch, but it’s at least arguable.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:18 Re:moron

The word “oxymoron” is actually unrelated to the word “moron”, at least under the modern definition of the latter term.

Additionally, whether or not something is an oxymoron is not dependent upon context at all. Unlike hypocrisy or irony, it stands on its own. Including the quote from the AC that said, “a level of idiocy,” has no effect upon the analysis of whether the quote from Edward Bernays is an oxymoron or not. If you have to add additional context to find a contradiction or something, then it’s not an oxymoron.

I don’t think you understand what an oxymoron is. They’re fairly brief, context-independent, and self-contained; not every actual or apparent contradiction is an oxymoron.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Pixelation says:

Other side

Looks like there is another side to the story. From a Dallas News article…
"Jim’s Car Wash is a place that shouldn’t be where it is. The zoning for the property doesn’t permit a car wash. It’s a nonconforming use, in the city’s parlance."

While it can be construed as retaliation, the shuttering of the business may be legit, if indeed the business is located where it isn’t allowed.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Tanner Andrews (profile) says:

Re: Other side

The zoning for the property doesn’t permit a car wash. It’s a nonconforming use, in the city’s parlance.

Nothing wrong with that. It sounds as though the business has been there for several years, and so it is most likely grandfathered in.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

This is why you don't call 9-1-1

Seattle tried something similar to deal with a strip of declining motels on US99 (Aurora Avenue). When I-5 came in, 99 was demoted to a state highway in various pieces and the motels which used to serve interstate travellers went downhill quickly. The city started using every law they could abuse to shut down motels as drugs and crime moved in. That may have been the beginning of using "calls to service to police" as a metric to designate a business a "nuisance property" municipally.

Unfortunately, the outcome is predictable. Penalise businesses for calling 9-1-1 and those businesses will stop calling 9-1-1, even if there is a legit need for police. The hôtelier might even go one step further and demand that their paying "guests" stop calling police in an emergency. This isn’t making anyone safer… but then crime wouldn’t pay if the government ran it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Personanongrata says:

Re: Re:

What’s to stop criminals from using this to extort business owners?

The criminals (ie Dallas City Counsel) are already extorting business owners under the guise of taxation for non-existent city services such as those not provided by costume wearing posers of the Dallas PD?

What happens if there is a fire does the city counsel and fire department require business owners extinguish the blaze on their own? Fire trucks are for parades only?

This criminal enterprise will stop when enough small business owners band together and stop paying the city’s extortionate demands (ie taxation in return for bogus claims of city services).

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

No Self-Damning Phone Calls

Given Israeli "success" with the Ruger 10/22 "Silent Sniper" package*, non-lethal leg-taps on a few naughty neighbors should suffice to increase police presence and/or reduce criminal presence without the need to disclose one’s identity by directly confronting criminals or undertaking the even greater risks of making phone calls to the cops.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Yes, What you said says:

Re: No Self-Damning Phone Calls

I love it when pro -Israeli death squad folks show up here, posting shit about knee -capping protesters.

And you also might like this piece about police extortion rackets, aka, organized gang stalking:,_Stalking#.22Security_Gangs.22

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Ferris Alexanders Dibbuk says:

that thing really caught on

That thing, that thing, shes really got that swing….????????

(puts down harp, jumps off angels lap )

Wowser, kids, I fought that type of shitty nuisance law abuse forty years ago, and look what a shithole America is now after I lost my ballz!

But at least IM in a BETTER place than Dallas! Which reminds me of something one of those Kennedy boys up here told me about that shithole oil republic….

Cant remember it.

I got an angel beckoning me at one oclock, and six, and eight. ….


This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Ofcr. Yourmom says:

Re: Re: that thing really caught on

Yeah, those mystical shrooms(which I cooked with chicken breast and forbidden, imported spores and white wine butter sauce ) told me that your Texas Rangers fentanyl fliers hoax there in Texas made the Texas Rangers and their butt -pigs in the sherrifs department look like lying, hoaxing fraudbags of pigshit.

Unless I missed a followup press release or something from them whoever they are, of course.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 that thing really caught on was you

I never intended on waving this around as a badge of authority or anything, but since you seem to think one needs to have been funny or insightful (or contribute anything here to the article at hand) in order to criticize your attempts at humor, I’ll just mention that I have gotten on the “Most Insightful Comment of the Week” a couple times and got into the top 10 for “most comments voted Insightful in 2019”, so I have some credentials for being insightful. Not that that should be relevant, but there.

With that out of the way, I agree with the AC here: you are terrible at making fun of people. I mean, I’ve seen worse, but still.

Aspergers Awareness NOW! says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Appeal From Authoritay!

Well, wow, congratulations.

Apparently the old addage about the one eyed king in the land of the blind is true.

Now, if only Stephen P. Stone, a welfare bilker from England with shitloads of time on his hands and a computer could win top commenter of the year , the entire world could fall off a cliff together, and no one would notice, cuz they wouldnt even see it coming.

Except you, of course, with that one all seeing, insightful eye.

Insightful, until you blink anyways.

Also, maybe you can get some help flagging and derailing my posts from JTRIG or one of the other military /intel troll farms. I hear they just love guys like you who do their work for free, nonetheless.

But maybe, read this first:

Thanks for that admission says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Appeal From Authoritay!

You might also enjoy my answer to the pathetic but now-seeking AC who is finding its voice in this thread too.

Jump down to AC Liberation Now! posts.

Or this other CVE related link about how this shitbag(zionist) darling of the (dominionist)intel community, Rita Katz pops up in so many narratives about mass shooters who were gang stalked before they went on rampages:

bills111 (profile) says:

This is surreal! This happened to me

My landlord tried to kill me several times over a 10 day period. I called the cops 35 times. They then threatened to arrest me when I tried to show them photographic evidence of one of the murder attempts.

They then assisted the Landlord in obtaining a fake restraining order, to evict me by surprise, because I was "harassing" the landlord. (the RO was later thrown out as 100% bogus by the appeals court).

Needless to say, these 10 sh**-head cops, their chief, the LL, and the town, have been sued for $19m. The case is nearing settlement. An absolutely surreal experience, for which I have permanent physical injuries and PTSD.

This Dallas article gave me flashbacks. The cops were probably trying to keep their crime stats down (that’s what happened in my case).

I hope that guy wins his lawsuit against those pieces of garbage.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Not Here says:

TD is a, #safespace.

Never mention police extortion via “security racketeering, ” aka Organized Gang Stalking by police and city beaureaucrats here.

You Will get FLAGGED!,_Stalking#.22Security_Gangs.22

If you use the phrase “organized gang stalking ” or FOP gang stalking in journalism, your career is f@ckin OVER, pal.

I mean it!

Nazi Papa Underwear®

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Race Baiting AC chatbot says:

Re: Re: Re:

Care to back up the claim that I am racist, you POS AI chatbot?

Despising you, as a person/chatbot who poses as a Stepinhotep black commenter is not the same as racism, because if hate has any place, its here, directed at you personally.

Not be cause you are a race -baiting AI chatbot mind you, but because you are a piece of shit, whose schtick itself is racist by definition.


Happy MLK Day to everyone else!

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Thanks for that admission says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

I had you pegged a few years back. But the proof that TD allows /condones /encourages them was absent.

Your concession that this is the cae here,at, deploying chatbots on the comment forum steers us into scientific proofnow.

Thanks, bot!

(thats a really bad look for Techdirt )

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

If you want to do shady stuff, it only makes sense to hang out at the car wash where you know the cops won’t show up even if called. On top of already harassing the business owner and employees, using official policy to ‘encourage’ payoffs to friends, encouraging others to use illegal crime-fighting measures even cops can’t legally use, and washing law enforcement’s hands of responsibility for actually enforcing the law in the area where that’s just too hard, they are also actively causing a worsening of crime in already high-crime areas of Dallas.

Additionally, those security guards they insist will solve the problem without police involvement? What do you think they do? A security guard might tell someone to leave the property or they will be arrested for trespassing, but if someone refuses to leave or something worse is going down, they are expected to call the police and try to keep themselves out of danger, only intervening if lives are in imminent danger. This is especially true when multiple people are involved, as there is usually only one security guard on duty and they would likely be both outnumbered and outgunned should a fight break out. If someone refuses to leave, SOP is to call the cops and get an officer to arrest the perpetrator for trespassing should they refuse to move on. If there’s drug sales, gang activity, etc, the security guard is supposed to observe and report to actual law enforcement so the officers sent out can walk in aware of the situation. Mall ninjas do not actually exist. By shirking their duty, law enforcement leaves businesses with no legal option to fill the gap left by the people they are still paying for law enforcement through taxes. Because of their power through political influence and mandated budgets, the police are able to act more like a major criminal enterprise than any other faction in the Dallas underworld, and intimidate businesses and politicians to keep the money flowing while they extort select businesses for further profit. This doesn’t even touch upon the misuse of forfeiture law against individuals, the disposition of seized drugs and weapons, explicit criminal moonlighting by LEO’s, and misuse of police raids. The department has become as much of a blight as the crime that excuses their existence to the public, and wrongdoing will continue to fester within the department until it is replaced in its entirety by a means of protecting the innocent and delivering justice to both victim and wrongdoer without causing undue harm. I rather doubt it will happen anytime soon, but there is at least some hope that things will eventually improve.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...