All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tami]

Alex Jones Files for Bankruptcy

For more than four years, Mr. Jones has stonewalled the courts on providing business records, financial information and other records in the Sandy Hook cases. In a separate lawsuit, the victims’ families have accused Mr. Jones of improperly siphoning assets from his business and channeling them to himself and his family. He will now ostensibly be required to reveal more about those assets.

“The bankruptcy system does not protect anyone who engages in intentional and egregious attacks on others, as Mr. Jones did,” said Chris Mattei, a lawyer for the families in the damages case in Connecticut. “The American judicial system will hold Alex Jones accountable, and we will never stop working to enforce the jury’s verdict.” In that case, in October, Mr. Jones was ordered to pay $1.4 billion. Two other cases were litigated in Texas.

Bankruptcy Fraud

Bankruptcy fraud is a white-collar crime that commonly takes four general forms:

A debtor conceals assets to avoid having to forfeit them.
An individual intentionally files false or incomplete forms. Including false information on a bankruptcy form may also constitute perjury.
An individual files multiple times using either false information or real information in several jurisdictions.
An individual bribes a court-appointed trustee.
Commonly, the criminal commits one of these forms of fraud with another crime, such as identity theft, mortgage fraud, money laundering, and public corruption.

[Malvolio]

The first time you say something hurtful without meaning it that way, you get a pass. But once you've been told, in clear and certain terms, that what you said was offensive or hurtful, and you continue to say it, prefacing it with phrases like, "no offense but," or "I don't mean to be mean," you're just being a dick.

[babyblob]

My Uncle aways told me

"When debating someone and they go out of their way to show you who they will are? Let them because their hateful words will do more for winning the debate for you then anything you could say."

It is a BS dodge to use things like "Well what policy would you intact? What do you want to see?" as a light weight defense of a horrible person rather then condemning the person and their hate speech.

All that should be said is

"This person is saying hurtful, dangerous things and it needs to stop."

Anything else is pure BS and is wrong.

[scourge]

"Well what policy would you intact? What do you want to see?"

Really comes off as "How can I loophole around policy to keep being a hateful jerk?" and "Give me something to whatabout with!" in this situation...

[shooshoomanjoe]

So are the Twitter Files problematic? Reputable media are stating it's not new information but conservative media is going bat crazy excited for 'corruption', 'i told you so', 'big tech needs to be taken down', etc. and republicans are eating it up.

[babyblob]

So are the Twitter Files problematic? Reputable media are stating it's not new information but conservative media is going bat crazy excited for 'corruption', 'i told you so', 'big tech needs to be taken down', etc. and republicans are eating it up.

What are the Twitter Files?

[WestPhillyPunisher]

What are the Twitter Files?

I think it has something to do with….wait for it….Hunter Biden.

[babyblob]

I think it has something to do with….wait for it….Hunter Biden.

Now I know you are full of it. No one on the GOP talk about Hunter. That died out awhile back.

[CaptainEurope]

So are the Twitter Files problematic? Reputable media are stating it's not new information but conservative media is going bat crazy excited for 'corruption', 'i told you so', 'big tech needs to be taken down', etc. and republicans are eating it up.

People who were not part of the government asked twitter to delete naked pictures posted without permission of the naked person. That it's, that's the tweet.

[scourge]

People who were not part of the government asked twitter to delete naked pictures posted without permission of the naked person. That it's, that's the tweet.

And then a current US Senator posted those naked pictures himself without permission.

[Mister Mets]

I really feel like you're being willfully obtuse here.

There was a shooting at a gay club in Colorado, and directly after what does libsoftiktok do? Post about how gun violence is terrible? No, they posted about other queer spaces in Colorado. The message was less than subtle.

In much the same way that a movie theater could kick a patron out of a theater for possibly causing a violent situation by yelling "Fire!" It would not be a bad idea to ban posts that are obviously trying to incite further violence.

And being civil isn't too vague, again you seem to be being obtuse, such blanket rules work just fine here and hundreds of other places online and in real life. If the ban hammer falls on you (or you're escorted out of a private business in real life) for using slurs like the n-word, k-word, f@$% or nasty sexual comments and yes referring to the trans community as people who are mutilating themselves then you shouldn't be surprised even if it isn't specifically spelled out because it's easily understood.

And I assure you, no one else would be surprised or outraged on your behalf for being banned for using any of those terms...and if they were then it's probably only a matter of time before they say something just as heinous and get banned too.

And mutilation is every bit as terrible as the other slurs I listed.

That's totally unequivocal.

And rather than argue about if it's too taboo the correct response is to accept the education on the term and apologize for your repeated use of it. That's what decent human beings do, and it can happen innocently too so it's no foul if you recognize it. Growing up around Boston I used the r-word like other people say, "um..." it was common place here even as other places had already condemned its use and when that was brought to my attention I erased it from my vocabulary which was no small feat but I didn't want to be a bad person so I did it. And I more recently learned the same thing about the word "spaz" again, a word I'd used for a very long time...but it's a hurtful term so my personal history of innocent use doesn't mean anything in the face of that so again I'm trying the phase it out.

I suggest you do the same with referring to gender affirming health care as mutilation.

It's wrong and hurtful, so be a decent human being and knock it off.

I assure you that I'm not being obtuse. The main misunderstanding was with the reference to a word although at this point we should each understand where the other is coming from. I'll note that I haven't used it; I've mentioned it, as have others in the discussion. It's necessary to mention a word in a context about a discussion about the ways in which private platforms should restrict individuals, and whether there is cause for a legal response.

If there's a subtext we haven't really discussed in this exchange, it may be my preference for clear rules, and a different understanding largely (but not exclusively) on the left to give administrators and bureaucrats more discretion, although even in that case, "these decisions should be left up to administrators" is a policy suggestion.

I understand that people are upset about the timing of comments by libsoftiktok after the Colorado shooting, but it doesn't seem to me that there's a workable policy response. Should there be a system in place that comments that are otherwise acceptable merit suspensions during national tragedies?

I honestly don't think the vague civility rules work well. Social media and these types of forums are supposed to be used by people with different backgrounds and frames of reference. In many cases, they can be persuaded by an argument about what's acceptable and why, but that argument should be clearly made. It shouldn't up to people of different ages, races, religions, classes, education levels, mental functions, nationalities, etc. to acclimate to the current understanding of college-educated American left-wingers. People should have a good sense of what the penalty will be for a comment before they make it, especially as these understandings aren't constant. It would not have been taboo to refer to mastectomies of minors as mutilation up until recently.

One way we may be talking past one another is that I'm focusing on the bigger policy questions (both in terms of what the law should and private institutions should do), and you guys are focusing on whether an activist is a bad person.

Using Social Media/The Internet to enable and encourage violence against anyone should be an instant banable offense at least, it's as simple as that. Incitement to Violence is a crime after all. LoTT has done that and continues to, and I don't think there is a reasonable argument against that fact. That she hasn't been prosecuted for this is more of an indictment of our legal system rather than a reason she is not guilty of the actions. This is obvious when you consider all the conservatives who are able to make such obviously loaded statements in order to encourage violence against their chosen targets (Democrats, LGBT, Muslims, Antifa, etc), and how hard it is to convict Trump of his role in 1/6.

Excusing hateful rhetoric because fact checkers didn't mention it as hateful rhetoric is also quite unreasonable, and clearly shows the prejudiced personal views of anyone making such statements.

E:

Thank you!

We still should determine what the policy is for banning someone who encourages and enables violence. For example, there have been riots after police misconduct has been made public, and any policy that would be used to penalize libsoftiktok could be used to go after critics of the police, especially if you want her to be criminally prosecuted.

If she's broken a law, what law has she broken? If she hasn't broken a law, what law should be put in place to stop people like her in the future?

Savannah teenager shot while volunteering for Warnock campaign

That's terrible.

I remember volunteering for a political campaign years ago (2012) and freaking out some people in Suburban Long Island when I was walking around knocking on their doors to give out campaign literature. It's especially problematic when in some cases you need people's signatures to get a candidate or an issue on the ballot.

We've got a culture clash between people who want to be left alone (every apartment building with a "No solicitations" sign) and methods of direct democracy.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

This just occurred to me: We’ve all heard and/or read that Trump called for the Constitution to be suspended and him to replace Biden as president. Not that his fever dream would ever happen, but, if it did, that would mean killing the Second Amendment, the sacred cow of the GQP, right wingers and ammosexuals from coast to coast. Things that make you go HMMMMMM….

[Tami]

I assure you that I'm not being obtuse. The main misunderstanding was with the reference to a word although at this point we should each understand where the other is coming from. I'll note that I haven't used it; I've mentioned it, as have others in the discussion. It's necessary to mention a word in a context about a discussion about the ways in which private platforms should restrict individuals, and whether there is cause for a legal response.

If there's a subtext we haven't really discussed in this exchange, it may be my preference for clear rules, and a different understanding largely (but not exclusively) on the left to give administrators and bureaucrats more discretion, although even in that case, "these decisions should be left up to administrators" is a policy suggestion.

I understand that people are upset about the timing of comments by libsoftiktok after the Colorado shooting, but it doesn't seem to me that there's a workable policy response. Should there be a system in place that comments that are otherwise acceptable merit suspensions during national tragedies?

I honestly don't think the vague civility rules work well. Social media and these types of forums are supposed to be used by people with different backgrounds and frames of reference. In many cases, they can be persuaded by an argument about what's acceptable and why, but that argument should be clearly made. It shouldn't up to people of different ages, races, religions, classes, education levels, mental functions, nationalities, etc. to acclimate to the current understanding of college-educated American left-wingers. People should have a good sense of what the penalty will be for a comment before they make it, especially as these understandings aren't constant. It would not have been taboo to refer to mastectomies of minors as mutilation up until recently.

One way we may be talking past one another is that I'm focusing on the bigger policy questions (both in terms of what the law should and private institutions should do), and you guys are focusing on whether an activist is a bad person.

We still should determine what the policy is for banning someone who encourages and enables violence. For example, there have been riots after police misconduct has been made public, and any policy that would be used to penalize libsoftiktok could be used to go after critics of the police, especially if you want her to be criminally prosecuted.

If she's broken a law, what law has she broken? If she hasn't broken a law, what law should be put in place to stop people like her in the future?



That's terrible.

I remember volunteering for a political campaign years ago (2012) and freaking out some people in Suburban Long Island when I was walking around knocking on their doors to give out campaign literature. It's especially problematic when in some cases you need people's signatures to get a candidate or an issue on the ballot.

We've got a culture clash between people who want to be left alone (every apartment building with a "No solicitations" sign) and methods of direct democracy.

Canvassers are usually trained to ring or knock once, wait a few minutes, then move on to the next house. I've had issues when I've canvassed, but no one has ever pulled a gun.

I don't think it is a culture clash. The desire to be left alone can be found in many people from many cultures. It's how you go about it that matters. Shouting from a window to 'go away', or hiding inside until the person at the door leaves, or hanging up signs that warn people from coming near the house, or buying a house far from society and living alone like a hermit, sure, go ahead.

Shooting someone through a door when you don't even know who it is, that's a sign of a troubled person. Let's face it, it could just as easily have been a Police Officer or a town official as a 15 year old Canvasser. If it was done for political reasons, then that's even more messed up.

[thwhtGuardian]

I assure you that I'm not being obtuse. The main misunderstanding was with the reference to a word although at this point we should each understand where the other is coming from. I'll note that I haven't used it; I've mentioned it, as have others in the discussion. It's necessary to mention a word in a context about a discussion about the ways in which private platforms should restrict individuals, and whether there is cause for a legal response.

If there's a subtext we haven't really discussed in this exchange, it may be my preference for clear rules, and a different understanding largely (but not exclusively) on the left to give administrators and bureaucrats more discretion, although even in that case, "these decisions should be left up to administrators" is a policy suggestion.

I understand that people are upset about the timing of comments by libsoftiktok after the Colorado shooting, but it doesn't seem to me that there's a workable policy response. Should there be a system in place that comments that are otherwise acceptable merit suspensions during national tragedies?

I honestly don't think the vague civility rules work well. Social media and these types of forums are supposed to be used by people with different backgrounds and frames of reference. In many cases, they can be persuaded by an argument about what's acceptable and why, but that argument should be clearly made. It shouldn't up to people of different ages, races, religions, classes, education levels, mental functions, nationalities, etc. to acclimate to the current understanding of college-educated American left-wingers. People should have a good sense of what the penalty will be for a comment before they make it, especially as these understandings aren't constant. It would not have been taboo to refer to mastectomies of minors as mutilation up until recently.

One way we may be talking past one another is that I'm focusing on the bigger policy questions (both in terms of what the law should and private institutions should do), and you guys are focusing on whether an activist is a bad person.

We still should determine what the policy is for banning someone who encourages and enables violence. For example, there have been riots after police misconduct has been made public, and any policy that would be used to penalize libsoftiktok could be used to go after critics of the police, especially if you want her to be criminally prosecuted.

If she's broken a law, what law has she broken? If she hasn't broken a law, what law should be put in place to stop people like her in the future?



That's terrible.

I remember volunteering for a political campaign years ago (2012) and freaking out some people in Suburban Long Island when I was walking around knocking on their doors to give out campaign literature. It's especially problematic when in some cases you need people's signatures to get a candidate or an issue on the ballot.

We've got a culture clash between people who want to be left alone (every apartment building with a "No solicitations" sign) and methods of direct democracy.

We're talking policy as well.

There was a targeted shooting at a gay club by someone incited by right wing talking points, the response isn't more incitement.

As I said already, we fully allow private institutions to toss and ban people for shouting comments that could cause harm(like "fire!" in a crowded place) so saying that it's acceptable that places online should do the same in their spaces isn't a bad thing and indeed has precedence. Posting more gay spaces in Colorado directly(and very obviously purposely) after one was targeted with extreme violence is such a situation where such a ban on more incendiary speech would come into play and for the same reasons business limit people from yelling fire: because it could cause harm to the public.

And no one is saying that she's broken a law, just that private institutions can and should be able to ban such speech.

And "be civil" rules do indeed work well...this very community has just such a rule and is a well functioning community and there are plenty others with just such rules.

And it's not hard to acclimate, just don't be a terrible person. It's very easy not to say hateful things, and just as easy to apologize once it's pointed out that you may have inadvertently said something offensive. That's what warnings and temporary bans are for.

And you've done more than just mention that others refer to gender affirming care as mutilation: you've repeated it without prefacing that it's evil and you've defended the right to say it repeatedly which is not the action of someone who believes such a comparison is absolutely disgusting would do. It's pretty simple.

Don't say transphobic things.
Don't defend people who say transphobic things.

Be a good person.

[babyblob]

There is already a bit of false flag going on about that shooting. I have no idea when it even happened to be honest. But there was a person on everyones favorite fake news station saying the kid was clearly there for another reason. Because how many 15 year olds are going door to door for candidate they are too young to vote for.