I would have made my comments regardless of your actions regarding the trust ratings, however I must say it pretty much removes any motivation I have to make any attempts at treading lightly with you considering it proves how easily upset and how little self control you have. I don't owe you a soft beating around the bush, especially after that treatment. I am absolutely a dick, but I am a dick with logic and principals.

Even if you got what you wanted, it would have zero effect on game-protect, and it would simultaneously degrade the value and meaning of this flag in the future by confusing it with compulsive and punitive bullshit such as your excuse for flagging here. Stop pretending this is for the community because it would do nothing to help them, but it would help you sooth your compulsion to lash out at those that cross you. This is for you and only you. Give it up.

Just to people who put their own compulsions over the integrity and function of the entire community.

[complains about selective enforcement of rules as you make lame attempts to justify punitive selective enforcement of the rules because your ends justify the means]

Rules are either for everyone or they are for no one. I know you think you are clever and trying to get one over on this turd, but the result would not effect him in any way, and the integrity of the trust system would be degraded as a result. The end does not justify the means.

So your point is all of these companies have the right to form effective monopolies, then deny anyone they don't like services? How long do you think it will be before sites like Bitcointalk are denied these services? Ask Theymos how things would run around here without access to Cloudflare. It is not at all hyperbole. Just because it is happening indirectly doesn't mean it isn't happening. For you to pretend that censorship is not brought on by government and corporate pressure is absolutely asinine and intentionally ignorant. It is not even up for debate. Just because they haven't crushed everyone on every outlet yet does not mean they aren't denying access to tons of basic services which are in effect monopolies.

Regarding Verizon, you are incorrect. They do not have that right, as they are regulated as a utility, as such they do not have the legal authority to deny people service based on their speech (short of it violating law). Again, this is 100% a valid point as this trend has been and will continue, and by your metric its perfectly ok to deny basic goods and services to people based only upon their speech. This is the INEVITABLE result of your logic. You just pretending it will never go that far is not a valid retort. All this is, is the American version of the Chinese social credit system. Soon people who say the wrong things will not be able to leave the country, use public transport, open a bank account, have a phone, or any of the basic necessities in a modern life. Don't worry though, you called me paranoid, so everything will be fine.


https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/the-brain-washing-of-the-partisan-bubbles-and-the-erosion-of-civil-liberties-to-stop-a-preceived-existential-threat/

Uh, no. Child porn is unfortunately endemic on the internet on all the most popular social media sites. The difference is they have larger staff to remove it faster or do so using automation. People like you love saying "build your own site" but that is exactly what 8chan did. Now they are being denied critical infrastructure to make that possible. This is no different than fascism with corporate and government entities operating in coordination to prevent targeted groups from being able to speak freely. Would you make the same argument that Verizon should be able to decide people are unfit to use a phone because of their legally protected speech? When does it end? How long will it be before you can't buy food or water if you say the wrong things by your metric?

You get that feeling because you tend to project your own emotional state onto others. I don't much care what people with their heads buried up their asses think of me. Don't listen to me, listen to reality all around you that you work so very hard to ignore every single day.

AK-47s are assault rifles. Semi-automatic weapons are not. It is possible as much as defending yourself with a pointy stick is. Not optimally.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/owner-of-8chan-says-the-manifesto-was-not-uploaded-by-the-el-paso-walmart-shooter/

Now Flying Hellfish is resorting to deleting entire topics just because they embarrass him?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5065043.0

Free version of this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5065324.0;all

"New Legislation Outlawing Violent Gun-Wielding Groups Accidentally Bans Federal Government"

https://babylonbee.com/news/new-legislation-targeting-violent-gun-wielding-groups-accidentally-bans-government

Any website that acts as a public forum is pretty much guaranteed to have child porn on it at one time or another, the host is not responsible for the actions of individual users as is any site. I love the way you phrased this and just skipped over the whole fascistic stifling of free speech and framed it in such a way as if I am arguing against you I am arguing in support of child porn. Not disingenuous at all. I know you think this is cute right now because you think it is being applied to "your enemies" but the fact is these are your rights being taken. I am just not as retarded as you and understand this means the end of rights for all of us, not just "one side". Hopefully one day in the future when you realize how much you were cheering for creating the prison you and all your loved ones will be doomed to live in, the torment of realizing what you advocated for won't make you want to just blow your brains out on the spot. You still have time.

Except the problem with your logic is that all you are doing is shifting the crime to being done using another device. Guns don't make people murder. It is not a legitimate metric because you were claiming a correlation between "leniency in gun laws" whatever the fuck that means with gun deaths. First of all anyone familiar with scientific method can tell you correlation does not automatically equal causation. A lot of people who happen to be criminals are shot while engaged in criminal activity, by your metric all of those people are implied victims of gun crime. Again, this includes police use, defensive use, and suicides. Are you suggesting police should be disarmed along with the general public, and that people intent on suicide will not find another way? So everyone gets their rights stripped because some people are intent to hurting themselves? Another issue with your supposed logic is you totally ignore the lives saved by defensive and legal use of firearms. Of course this doesn't fit your belief system so that doesn't count does it? Nope, chock those all up to "gun deaths", and mark guns as the problem, not the criminals.


Except you don't get to claim all defensive uses of firearms and intentional self harm are caused by firearm ownership. It is like saying obesity is caused by food, so we need food control laws because people might hurt themselves eating too much. People have a right to defend themselves, and that self defense by your metric gets added on to "gun deaths" when they are in fact proof of the protection gun ownership offers. Your metric is completely intellectually dishonest and deceptive.



Yes, lets look at some sources:



https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/here-are-8-stubborn-facts-gun-violence-america

https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/

https://mises.org/wire/few-gun-laws-new-hampshire-safer-canada

https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/



So removing potential victims from the scene does not potentially reduce the rate at which he can take victims, effectively slowing him down? If you watched the statement video he made, you would know he did in fact draw his weapon. What other assumptions based on zero information are you making? If you read the story two days ago why is it you are pretending it never happened?


Not at all. A firearm can be used to protect life as much as it can be used to take life. You just ignore the part that protects life and in your fantasy world that never happens, and if it did fuck those people who would have otherwise been victims right? The very first sentence of your link has problems.

"The man who invented the iconic AK-47 automatic rifle wrote of his regret at creating the weapon. "

If you knew anything about firearms, you would know the AK-47 is an AUTOMATIC rifle, a type of rifle which is VERY heavily restricted and expensive to obtain in the USA. Of course you know jack shit about firearms, but are still willing to strip people's rights over your ignorant assumptions based on movies and sensationalized media. I am sure your death bed regrets of a weapon designer are all the proof you need that is was "designed to inflict mass human casualties", even though almost no one in the US owns any of these weapons.



The only thing you would add is "Fuck everyone who doesn't want their rights taken so they can be made victims, black rifles are scary and need to be banned so my irrational fears can be assuaged." You are only taking the rights of other people after all, no skin off your back. It is much easier that way isn't it?

Unless of course there is another dependent factor you are leaving out, such as over prescription of medication and lack of mental health treatment. McAfee raised an interesting question recently.

"Why have people become so angry, hostile and alienated that they need to murder total strangers? That's the question, people. We need to answer that first."


What about setting buildings on fire? Improvised explosives? Poison? Running people over with trucks? The fact is modern life gives everyone ample opportunity to use these tools to harm people if they choose to. The problem is not the tool they use, it is the motivation behind it. If all we are doing is taking tools away we still have homicidal people only killing people using different tools, and people less able to defend themselves. That is even assuming that gun control will keep illegal guns out of their hands at all, which is arguable since if some one is willing to murder they don't much care about violating gun laws.

Except your little website is akin to saying "People who have pools are more likely to drown." or "People who drive cars are more likely to have an automobile accident." It is not a legitimate metric. Also, you will notice it is "gun deaths", another slick little trick anti-rights pushers try to use to lump in all defensive use, suicides, etc into statistics to inflate them. More people are killed every year with blunt objects than with "assault rifles" even though an assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle, not just a black rifle that looks scary. All of the states with the most strict gun control laws have the biggest problems with firearm homicides.

Six minutes is a long time. Of course you haven't read it anywhere. You only consume pasteurized and opinion piece media that filters your reality for you so you never have to experience any mild form of cognitive dissonance by being forced to consider ideas that conflict with your beliefs. It doesn't fit the "guns are bad" narrative so of course it is not being reported. Firearms aren't designed to cause mass casualties any more than a lighter is designed to burn down mass amounts of buildings. It is a tool, and it does what the person behind it makes it do.

If there is no criminal activity... what exactly is the story that you are breaking? That two ideologically similar political groups in two allied nations coordinated with each other? THE HORROR!

Here we are, exactly as predicted, these events are being used to end free speech and 2nd amendment rights. I am sure all the shooters used Facebook too. Why is it Facebook is not responsible for radicalizing them?

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/network-provider-cloudflare-drop-8chan-after-el-paso-shooting-n1039151

I prefer to think of it as a legal debate.

not being protected does not equal to restricting "the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." You are confusing positive and negative rights. You have a right to free speech. You don't have a right to a newspaper ad or a bullhorn to be heard. You have a right to practice your religion, not get tax breaks and other protections.

I wasn't aware it was a requirement to be sick to consume medication. The fact is the USA is the most medicated nation on Earth. Everyone wants to pretend this is not a factor, instead opting for the personification of inanimate objects, blaming them for the acts of mass shooters, the majority of which are on some kind of psychotropic drug with the known side effects of suicidal and homicidal ideation.

One other question you might ask, which country is the most heavily medicated on Earth?