"DH seemed to suggest that the characterization of the TSA was justified because we are talking about not just one agent." (emph. added by me)
Nice... I see what you did there. "not just one"... tricky tricky!
Nice try tho. We're not characterizing the TSA based on "not just one" agent... we're characterizing the TSA based on many actions taken by multiple (more than 'not just one') agents, the agency's responses to those actions and the fact that it is completely useless.
If you want to try to apply that same rationale to the comments section of TD, you better have more than just two (you know... "not just one") examples of advocating violence.
I agree with DH that these instances are easily distinguishable... the VAST majority of TD's comment section- insiders and outsiders... those who agree AND disagree... ALL- are reasonable and don't resort to threats of violence or start advocating the murder of people who don't agree with whatever it is we're making a stand on. On the other hand, we’ve seen repeated examples of the TSA being exactly what we’re saying they are… some of the offences a repeat of the same damned thing to the SAME DAMNED PEOPLE (urine bag, anyone?).
The difference here should be as visible as the difference between getting bit by a mosquito (something that when it happens, you notice, scratch a bit, and move on)... and getting hit in the face by a baseball bat with a nail in it.
What you were supporting was a troll popping up to sling a bit of muddy shit at the community here in a half-assed attempt at some ridiculous straw-man and red-herring misdirection.
Addressing what content?
"Is this the first/only comment on Techdirt advocating violence?" Are you using the same 'question mark misdirection' you accused Mike of?
Fine... allow me to address your post:
What's your point? Are you asking if the registered community and/or supporters of TechDirt have posted an advocacy of violence? The answer to that is "I have no idea". I haven't read every single comment made on every single post.
However, that's all a mislead. The 'advocacy of violence' here was made by an anonymous poster (you? ~shrug~) for the obvious purpose of causing a reaction. Considering everything posted in that original thread and in this one, I'd say that was one of the best examples of trolling we've seen in a while around here.
So that brings me back to my point: make your point better. Clarify: what are you implying by your original question? If you're not implying anything, why ask such a ridiculous question... of course there's been some nutjob jackwaggon posting violence around here somewhere... TD has been around for a while now.... law of large numbers and all that.
And now, let’s address your post as a response to Dark Helmets. DH was addressing the ridiculous comment that Mike and TD broad-brush the whole TSA system because of the actions of one TSA agent. I say ‘ridiculous’ without fear of contradiction on this one. Considering the many MANY examples we’ve seen of the system being abused, mislead, and just simply useless… there’s no way ANYONE can say that the foul opinion of the TSA in general is a misapplication of the traits of a single agent.
So your response to that is to ask… what? Is this one example of ‘advocacy for violence’ somehow one among many that illustrates some theme in TD? It sounds like you’re agreeing with the original AC that the ‘many advocates for violation’ illustrate some kind of legitimate threat. Just trying to clarify what you meant here.
"The patdowns aren't going to actually catch someone who wants to sneak something into the game (my flask can vouch for me on this one)."
Kind of reminds me of the difference between a law-abiding licensed weapon carrier and a scoff-law gun-toting thug. Those who want to smuggle something into the stadium are going to be really crafty about it. Some over-compensating thug who thinks they need to bring their 9mm penis with them everywhere they go is going to just tuck it in a bit further or strap it to their ankle.
Those who would be discouraged by a half-assed surface search probably wouldn't be bringing in anything 'illegal' in the first place... just something like a flask that they won't mind parting with if they do get caught.
"...holders of a government monopoly (and that's exactly what police are)"
Semantics, but that's not entirely true. A) they are a socialized protection force (the people pay for it... even if they're not really getting a good deal for their money)... and b) citizens can enforce the law to an extent. Go read about citizen’s arrest.
But again, that's all semantics. What bothers me here is that they ticketed a guy for (I'm assuming) obstruction or interfering with traffic, and then did nothing to actually help the situation.
I was always taught that if you don't have anything to say, don't say anything. Something I usually fail horribly at.
But should that old etiquette be legislated?
Or, how about the more logical thing... if you don't like what someone says online, don't read it. Why should we draft new laws and modify old ones just so some thin-skinned pansies don't get their ickle feewings huwt.
Re: Arguing exact figure just admits there are losses.
Nice try there OOTB. Can I call you OohtBee? Cool.
The original argument had nothing to do with the figures other than calling the RIAA out again for relying on reports whose figures have been proven to be wrong. The point of the article was the claim that the economy loses the money.
Just because you try to swing the argument over to the figures does not mean that there really are losses. I'm not saying that there's not some kind of loss somewhere... personally, I think it gets washed out be the net gain from how 'pirates' do support the industry.
But you can't twist an argument into a whole new thing that we weren't even talking about and then claim that we're admitting something because of that twist. Nice try though.
"Two? Look at the snowflakes. It looks like a lot more than that to me."
I was referring to the two who were arguing directly... the "?" was to acknowledge that they could be the same person using "IP Trickery" to "fool the snowflakes".
"How many people are behind the "Jay" account?"
Doesn't matter. "Jay" is an online entity. How many people are in my head behind "Me"? More than one, if you count the various moods, attitudes and masks I don in the different aspects of my life.
"Because you say so?"
No, because it's a distinction of the difference between ourselves and our online persona's. You completely missed the point on that. "Jay" is an online persona of the person sitting somewhere with a keyboard. Just like I'm a "different person" at work than I am at home, so too are we all online. When I review what "Jay" has to say, I look at him as "Jay" (an entity made up of what he has said in the past), not the person with the keyboard.
"When I see someone pretending that registered names uniquely identify posters... they're either dishonest or ignorant or both. And quite possibly a sock puppet troll as well under other names."
So anyone who decides to establish a history of what they have said is a stupid liar? Wow.
”Straw man. Nobody is saying that and it is dishonest to suggest that they are.”
Bullshit. Direct bullshit. ”Umm, so? So you've been at it for a while? Big deal.” - Accusing me of dishonesty ”No, claiming that fake identities are true is dishonest.” - Accusing me of dishonesty (because I believe that these identities are true for our online personae) ”An unreliable, potentially skewed and unbalanced cherry-picked one. You could probably make anyone look like a saint by cherry-picking what's in their "history". Just what you want, eh?” - Accusing me of the dishonest act of only believing what I want to when I read thru a user’s history to bolster someone’s believability ”When I see someone pretending that registered names uniquely identify posters... they're either dishonest or ignorant or both. And quite possibly a sock puppet troll as well under other names.” - I don’t even have to try to explain how that’s accusatory
"Ah yes, if anyone doubts you, just call them a tinfoil hatter."
no, just anyone who continues on the argument that everyone is a liar who's trying to decieve everyone else.
"Anyone who puts faith in those identities is naive, at the best. But you're free to do so if you like. However, if you start going around claiming that those "identities" are unique to individuals, some of us who know better might challenge you on that."
Ah, yes... the "we know better than you" because we've been around. Right. Because I know for a fact that you didn't just turn on your first computer a week ago and this is the very first conversation you've ever had. Hmm... would be nice if I could verify that you actually have experience any of that, huh? Or should I believe it "just because you say so"?
And I never claimed that the identities are unique to an individual. I stated that when I see an identity online, I look at that identity as a unique entity online. I don’t care if the entire writing staff of the New York Times is typing for “Jay”… in the online realm, Jay is an entity unto himself. What or who he is ‘in the real world’ does not change that identity.
"Heaven help us that anyone would dare doubt you."
Anyone who doubts me is free to do so. But when you keep just saying "nuh uh! you're wrong!" no matter what I say? Yeah, I don't put much value in what you have to say unless you have something to back that up.
Have you been so scarred by sock puppetry that you see it in every nook and cranny?
"And I'll reserve the right to continue to call out BS where I see it."
Which is certainly your right... good thing you can just say "I don't believe you" when you encounter an instance when you're wrong.
"There you go again, trying to pretend that sock puppets are "imaginary". Such ignorance causes me to pity *you*."
I never said that sock puppets are imaginary. I even agreed that it could and does happen. I'm saying that not everyone with an account is a sock puppet. Nor is everyone who believes that there is validity behind online identities.
Look, I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me. You'll never believe me when I say that I have one online name that I use everywhere I go. You'll never believe me when I say that anytime I have posted anonymously, it was because I didn't realize I wasn't logged in, and immediately claimed those comments to roll them into my history. You'll never believe me when I say that when I came back from an absence, and realized that somehow some of my comments had wandered, I spent HOURS going through and claiming them into my account so that I could convey an accurate depiction of who I am online.
And I don't care.
Nothing will convince you that there are some people online that are honest. You’ll just see sock puppets everywhere you look.
I know I said last time that I wasn't going to keep arguing. Now that I've had my say, I'm done. Feel free to pick apart what I say, take it out of context, and/or just ignore my point and attack me as a dishonest fool. I'll even let you have the last word so you can 'win'. Everyone else around here who values my opinion will continue to do so based on the fact that they know that it’s me saying it and they can verify that I am sticking to my convictions.
Sorry about bringint this back to the base of the thread, but running two threads that deep is getting annoying.
I'm not going to keep defending myself against two(?) AC's who apparently just have a problem with believing anyone about anything. You seem to think that just because these statements are online, they suddenly fail to meet some standard of identity. Why single out ‘online’? There is no way that you can ever be sure that the person talking to you face to face is who they claim to be... in either identity or personality. There is no way for anyone in this existence to even know if anyone else even exists and is not all just a hallucination. So why is the layer of 'online' any different?
When we meet people, we make judgments about them based on what they say and do. When I come here, I see someone's tag that says "Jay", I know that whatever statements follow that tag may not represent the 'true person' who's typing them on a keyboard. That doesn't matter tho, does it? I'm only interested in his identity in the context in which I experience it.
Does he say things here that he may not say to his mother in real life? Probably. Does that matter to me since I'm not his mother? Nope. The 'person' of Jay exists only in this realm and his attributes are given by those who perceive him. If he's just a figment that was created by someone who has other personalities, that's fine. The "man behind the curtain" is not Jay.
As for me holding less value for people who don't have an account... perhaps I wasn't clear. When I see an AC posting two lines of insult with nothing to add... and I can't go back and see if they actually said other things in the past... they're a troll. I see people like DH post zingy one-liners all the time, but I know he's just being pithy... I have seen him post fully thought-out posts before; thus, not a troll. However, I don't automatically devalue what an AC says just because they're not registered. I have seen many ACs come here with some truly informed and insightful points of view.
Past the one-liners… when a person here makes a statement that amounts to a ‘stand’ on something, I can take that stand more seriously if I can see that he or she has made similar stands in the past. It lets me know that they are sticking to their guns and not just trolling.
So let’s back all the way back up to the root... What is your problem? Am I a liar because I have a registered account? Am I a liar because I maintain that the history of my account establishes that I am who I represent myself to be here? Seriously... the length of my history only proves that "I've been at it for a while"? Really? That sounds like the beginning of an argument with a tinfoil hat who is going to answer anything I say with "or IS it?!?" and wait for the ominous music.
If you don't want to trust people online, that's your call. I don't take anything I read online as gospel... but being able to look behind a statement and see that the person making it has a history of making intelligent and informed statements about the same topic tells me that they're not just some trolling asshat trying to stir up a flame war.
I don’t really care if you believe my honesty or not. I don’t care if you think I’m stupid for putting value in a history behind statements made in the past by an online identity. You’ve already proven to me that you’re both simply argumentative… you do make some good points that if someone were so-inclined they could be very dishonest and manipulative online (gasp of surprise), but your opinion of me at this point matters precisely nil. I will continue putting value where I see it. If you mind is set so that just because you imagine a dishonest act, you feel that everyone else MUST be doing it, I pity you.
Well, AW actually covered most of what would have been my response, but I'll say my piece anyway...
"Yes, and they all had to pay for a permit to set up shop."
The Farmers Market may have had to pay permit fees to organize the market at that location. The vendors who are selling 'under the flag of' the Market would probably have paid money to the association to help offset or recoup that cost.
But you notice Ean was not a vendor? He was giving away lemonade. Period. He wasn't a vendor, he wasn't claiming that he was part of the Farmer's Market.
And if a permit was so required, why wasn't he forcibly removed by the law enforcement who came by and clearly knew that he didn't have a permit?
"Boo fuckin hoo, and your opinion was so devalued, you still had to respond. He was "protesting" in a way that would cause problems, so he could be the big internet star that day. Still an ass."
What? My opinion was so devalued that I had to respond? ... what?
Moving on... AW hit it when he said you obviously don't understand a protest if you think it's not supposed to 'cause problems'. But let's back up a second... who did he cause a problem for? ONE FREAKIN GUY! One. That's it. O-N-E. You could say that he actualy made a few peoples' days because they got some free lemonade. The rest of the time, he was raising a bit of awareness about the lemonade-enforcement issues. So how is this ‘causing a problem’?
OOOOhhh… that’s right, he was doing this so he could be on YouTube! How stupid of me.
"And again, you didn't see the point at all. If he was around the corner..." screw it... people can look up and read...
How would it be different any different? He was doing this in a completely legal way in a completely legal place and bothered no one except one guy who was probably just pissed about not getting a vendor's fee from him. He didn't interfere with anyone's free movement. He was on a spot of the sidewalk that was not crowded, and was not 'too close' to any vendors as to block access to them. And who was he harassing? I get more harassment from people giving me jesus pamphlets than from this guy.
You saw a few minutes of this guy’s video... you have no idea what he was doing when he wasn't being confronted by the farmer's market pres. Sounded to me like he started off telling people who wanted to stop for a moment exactly what he was doing.
And what good old days are you talking about? The days when we had things like sit-ins on the Capital Lawn? The Million-Man march that blocked traffic in streets? The loud and disruptive vocal protests at university campuses? The PETA gatherings that would splash paint on passers-by wearing fur or leather? How about the TeaParty group that protested a charity dinner being held to raise money and awareness for the homeless just because it’s being done by Muslims. Yeah, he's such a horrible ASS compared to those examples.
You know, you're so far off base with your disagreement, I wonder what your problem with this guy really is. Did a lemonade vendor splash lemonade in your eyes as a kid? Is this the skinny little guy you used to beat up in school because you were intimidated by his intelligence? Seriously… what?
" But offering a product in a location where people are paying for the right to buy and sell a product makes it a bit different."
Never been to a farmer's market held in public places, have you? He was on a public sidwalk, not on privately own land. It makes no difference if there are other people selling things there along side him. That does hot cange the nature of the public area.
" And he's still an ass regardless, even besides his name you can tell by his passive aggressive
your opinion has been noted and dismissed as a pointless ad-hoinim attack that has done nothing to forward your argument and has only degraded my opinion of you, your skills at debate, and the value of anything you have to say.
"Again, if he did this in front of his house, or some location that he was not getting in someone's way, that would be different."
and again that wasn't the point. As I said in post 33, the WHOLE reason he did this was to protest in public. Wouldn't do much from the front of his house, would it.