To a wanker whose ego overrides common sense and rational thinking, everything to be said by anyone is only an opinion if they disagree with it. Likewise, anything to be said by someone is a fact if they agree with it.
Type 1 flags are meant to be subjective, aka opinion based. Get over it. I like how you lecture me about rational thinking as you make broad generalizations int he same breath. Type 1 flags are meant to be "more subjective". More subjective does not mean totally subjective. Additionally the language Theymos used EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED the flag being used to object to people's opinions, making your subjectivity argument moot.
Is he explicitly calling for violence? I doubt it, because that is illegal and would most likely be addressed with moderator action. Therefore your comparison is not valid. You still are not addressing the impact upon the fidelity of the trust system that results from using it as a tool to punish people for their opinions just because you find it objectionable. This is more about the precedent that this flag is acceptable than roach. This is about protecting the system and preventing its continued abuse under the new metrics which is far more important than your little flag on this user because you object to his rhetoric.
People love using that term "dog whistles". It is a great way to defame people you don't agree with, because you aren't actually addressing what they said, but instead what you INTERPRET what they said to mean, which is of course impossible to argue against as it exists only in your mind. This is just another bullshit excuse to do a semantic dance to put lipstick on this pig and pretend this is not about punishing him for his objectionable opinions. The op has CLAIMED it is not about his opinions, but I have not seen any evidence presented OTHER than his opinions. You people think you are gaining something with this behavior, but you are making us all less free, and less able to enjoy these systems of protection here just to fulfill your compulsion to smite those that offend you.
Have you actually read his posts? Here is a sample.
You can tell how close the system is to collapsing by how desperate they are to try and grab the guns so they can try and force a new debt based currency scam on people when this one blows up. I really hope they continue this completely hopeless plan up until the very end. The kikes could just take all their stolen wealth and try to flee somewhere else and change their last names like they always do, but if they stay and don't try to run, they're as good as toast because everyone knows exactly who is behind it.
So, please Jews, I beg you, do not attempt to flee America. Stay in the US and continue your hopeless plan so you'll all be eradicated.
Seems like a rather explicit call for violence to me. The only reason he gets away with this statement is: A) The financial system hasn't collapsed, yet. So this is only hypothetical. B) The WO thread isn't moderated by staff. C) Infrofront didn't delete this post. Probably because in this case, realr0ach isn't trolling a distinct individual. Unfortunately, all Infrofront has the power to do is delete posts. He can't issue bans. Also, I don't believe that my interpretation of statements like this are somehow irrational, that somehow "only exist in my mind." What rational person would come up with a different conclusion?  Is that supposed to shock me into agreeing with you? I don't have to endorse what he says to object to this abuse of the trust system. Again, there is no explicit call to violence, if there was the staff would most definitely take action for liability reasons regardless where it is located. I never said your interpretations were irrational, just that they aren't his words, they are your interpreted meaning of them. People shouldn't be responsible for what other people interpret their words to mean, if that was the case all kinds of abuse could be justified, again because the interpretation exists only in your mind and can not be objectively observed. |
|
|
|
Witnesses are extremely unreliable, just saying. Also, this conspiracy shit happens every single time, every time there is a shooting, there is some weird ass conspiracy about it, every time someone famous dies, boom, nope, they are alive, it's a conspiracy, don't people get tired of this shit?
The unreliability of witnesses is usually the kind of thing you would attribute to a false ID or mismatching details, not imagining armed teams of people running around. People who fear that they might have to adapt their belief system to new and challenging concepts so often use the term "conspiracy" to dismiss everything and anything as a way to end that difficult cognitive dissonance they are experiencing. By every metric this was a conspiracy. Two guys planning to rob a 7-11 is a conspiracy. A conspiracy is simply a legal terminology for planning a crime between 2 or more people. Stop using that word as a lazy cudgel to avoid for what is for you a difficult task of critical examination of the situation. You don't think it is at all strange that one man from so far away was able to kill and injure so many people in such a short period of time? Why is it nearly every other mass shooting there are endless details about the situation and the shooter along with their motives plastered all over, yet this incident just suddenly vanished from public consciousness without any of that examination? Stop being so willfully ignorant. Eyewitnesses are unreliable. There are always going to be a few people who claim to have seen things that didn't happen either because they're mistaken or misinterpreted what they did see, or because they're deliberately lying for their own reasons. Frankly, I'd suspect a conspiracy if there weren't conflicting eyewitness accounts.
Polly want a cracker? |
|
|
|
@TECSHARE, I'm curious where you found that document. The grammar is shit, which strikes me as odd if I am to believe it was written by a professional LEO. One insane shooter case closed. That's a rather convenient stance to take on an issue that resulted in so much death and injury. Obviously there's more to this story, and dismissing it as though it was merely due to "insanity" is a rather weak argument. By all accounts the accused shooter showed no prior signs of insanity or any other mental health issues. The only thing we've been told about him is that he may have been a compulsive gambler, but he wasn't broke (financially.) So what caused him to break (mentally?) I'm still not convinced that Stephen Paddock wasn't a patsy, but I don't care to speculate for whom or what. I have looked for hours for the original source to no avail. According to the image it is a called in statement to the FBI's Public Access Line, which means it was likely transcribed by some cubicle jockey and not necessarily a LEO. I was able to find information suggesting it was released as part of a FOIA request submitted to the FBI. I will update if I can find more. FYI, I think otrkid was being sarcastic. UPDATE: It is located here, page 21 of this FOIA dump: https://www.scribd.com/document/410341446/May-Production-2019 |
|
|
|
One insane shooter case closed.
 |
|
|
|
|
Ross Ulbricht was railroaded. Many of the charges were manufactured in order to create an excessive penalty in order to make an example out of him. Under the laws at the time he had certain protections as a platform but these were ignored.
|
|
|
|
Still if one is here speaking free mind of bombing and terrorism etc that would be a NO GO imo, (to be extreme) if one was talking people into that sh*t and almost recruiting to do so, that would be eliminated imo
So r0ach is imo also a bit extreme when he talks like jews need to be gone, (said in in many different manners) ....
Then I suggest people reading him taking care as he already lost a lot of credibility with his free speaking in the forum, why are you so difficult and can't you see that its a warning flag to take care with this dude, cause what you read could harm especially when people are less good minded or bit simpel....
Also F*** man its a soft flag, we talk with this dude for over a few 1000 pages, I guess the F*** we know what we are saying and I don't think the OP is making outrageous flags or anything, V8 is a highly recommended member and I would support him with a lot as trust him with BTC!
I will not do that with that F***ed up being of a r0ach.
Is he explicitly calling for violence? I doubt it, because that is illegal and would most likely be addressed with moderator action. Therefore your comparison is not valid. You still are not addressing the impact upon the fidelity of the trust system that results from using it as a tool to punish people for their opinions just because you find it objectionable. This is more about the precedent that this flag is acceptable than roach. This is about protecting the system and preventing its continued abuse under the new metrics which is far more important than your little flag on this user because you object to his rhetoric. Yes, r0ach keeps blowing those dog whistles. He always states it in a way that doesn't overtly call for genocide. However, anyone with half a brain can gather what he means when he states that jews need to be expelled from every nation on Earth. I doubt that he means putting them in some ghettos on seasteads or putting them on a colony on the moon. (Although he could mean just sterilizing them and making their "cult" illegal. Who knows.) Also, he talks frequently about preparing for some kind of war against them. Unfortunately, the OP has made it clear that the flag isn't about r0ach's extreme views on many things. Otherwise, I would be more tempted to support it. After all, I doubt any jew would be perfectly safe having any dealings with him, much less financial dealings. Furthermore, if I were a woman, I wouldn't want to have any dealings with him either. After all, what woman wants to do deals with a guy who basically believes all woman are gold digging whores? Also, I have to admit that I actually listened to some of his financial advise and bought a small amount of silver with BTC in mid 2017. Needless to say, that appears to be a bad trade considering the current price of silver and BTC. However, I don't think we should set a precedent by yellow tagging people that give bad investment advise. Also, I haven't sold my silver yet. So who knows, maybe it will skyrocket to the moon, like it did in the early 80s.  People love using that term "dog whistles". It is a great way to defame people you don't agree with, because you aren't actually addressing what they said, but instead what you INTERPRET what they said to mean, which is of course impossible to argue against as it exists only in your mind. This is just another bullshit excuse to do a semantic dance to put lipstick on this pig and pretend this is not about punishing him for his objectionable opinions. The op has CLAIMED it is not about his opinions, but I have not seen any evidence presented OTHER than his opinions. You people think you are gaining something with this behavior, but you are making us all less free, and less able to enjoy these systems of protection here just to fulfill your compulsion to smite those that offend you. |
|
|
|
I am not ideologically opposed to the death penalty for certain crimes, however due to incompetence and corruption of government, I have to oppose it on the principal that it too often makes mistakes. Prisoners can be freed, dead men stay dead.
there is never a perfectly working government, never something without corruption Exactly. That is why government power should be strictly limited. |
|
|
|
I am sure a lot of you have heard about this, but since the legacy media can't compete with the alternative media, they have opted to attack their ability to not only present their views, but earn a living from doing so. People are so hungry for truth and so tired of the old dried out turd that is the MSM, they literally can not compete with a guy in his garage on his web cam. This is only going to get worse, not just in the digital sphere, but in meat space.
They started with the fringes, now they are moving into quite main stream commentators. They are crafting a Communist style system of political correctness, and anyone who doesn't comply will be unpersoned and cut off from using the banking system, from transportation, from internet platforms, and even the ability to earn a living. Prepare yourselves, because when you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.
Can you hyperlink the article you read? I am not referencing a specific article. If you can tell me which subject in particular you are trying to learn about maybe I can help though. |
|
|
|
At this time, I am not going to support this particular flag, but I am not going to oppose it either.
I, personally, believe that this particular Roach flag and the support for the flag goes beyond opposing roach for his opinion, or at least there is more than ample reason and evidence (provided by V8, others and Roach himself) to oppose roach for his actual trolling and shill style - which is a form of disrespect of the forum, disrespect of others, which are reasons that a lot of trolls/shills are banned from many forums.
Likely, since Roach is still here, posting away on a semi-regular basis, admins have not been able to conclude that his conduct has crossed a high enough threshold for banning, but there does seem to be sufficient argument and evidence that his conduct has rises to a high enough level to receive a flag (especially within an acceptable range of reasonableness in the discretion of some other members - some of whom have chosen to support this particular flag).
Of course, the posting behaviors of roach - not just his opinion - actually interfere with the ability of threads to stay substantively focused. So, contrary to your assertion, Tecshare, I doubt that this particular flag is merely based on a disagreement of Roach's opinion, and I think V8 and substantive discussion in this thread provides reasonably sufficient evidence that the flag is not merely because of an opposition to Roach's opinion as you are attempting to frame the matter.
If what you claim is correct, then all of those issues fall under forum rules. Anyone interfering with thread focus is a matter for moderation, not the trust system. As you have already stated the moderators have not deemed his conduct sufficiently disruptive enough to take action against him, which is exactly why this step is being taken against him. Since the moderators won't do what you want and silence this person, you all are attempting to penalize him for his opinions via abuse of the trust system. This is not "many forums", this is one of the only places left on the internet where people are still allowed to speak freely, and I would think you people would understand the value of that over trying to punitively punish some one by abusing a system designed to protect people from fraud when making exchanges. You do a semantic dance to put lipstick on this pig all you want, this is base authoritarian behavior, and it is destructive to the cohesion of the trust system on top of it. The levels of freedom of speech allowed on this forum and the fidelity of the trust system are exponentially more important than your collective butt hurt over some "troll" as you define it. Also lets all put aside that another definition of troll is some one who has opinions that agitate you. Good thing you have this nifty system to abuse to sooth your collective butt hurt and make yourself feel like you have some power over him right? You redefine his opinions 100 different ways, it has nothing to do with trading or risk of trades, it is just a pathetic attempt to punish him over his opinion. The cost of everyone being able to speak freely here is occasionally some one agitates or offends you. Deal with it. If you can't deal with it put him on ignore. Stop using the trust system as a crutch to deal with your inability do control your own emotional state. This flag is pathetic, and so is everyone supporting it. |
|
|
|
just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.
There is no point to requiring flag threads if there is no debate over the legitimacy of them, and the precedent it sets. This flag is not what the trust system was created for. If everybody thinks it needs 0-support then its flawed and not activated, I wasn't gonna create myself (thought about it, but V8 explained it better) and with the flag being out, I was sure to support it! So if more think samewise then they will support if more think like you then they will oppose. 'crystal clear' I don't know if you have noticed, but just because a mob forms doesn't mean they are acting justly. Theymos made it very explicit that flags period should not be used for punishing people's opinions. I have seen absolutely ZERO evidence presented that this flag is for anything other than his opinions. |
|
|
|
just support or oppose ...... actually thats just the case that need to happen.
There is no point to requiring flag threads if there is no debate over the legitimacy of them, and the precedent it sets. This flag is not what the trust system was created for. |
|
|
|
I don't know how to stay on topic because I am too busy jerking myself off over my perceived moral and intellectual superiority, projecting, and making wild assumptions. And that is how a drama queen loses an argument. LOL. Take a nap. Come back when you have something relevant to say. I made it very clear I was not going to debate the existence or non-existence of God with you from the very start, first thing in fact. You are an obsessive myopic bigot over this issue, even if the debate itself was not absolutely pointless as there can literally never be any resolution. Take your own advice and get back to me when you want to reply to what I actually said instead of what you want to obsess about. |
|
|
|
Dude you def look like the cave man guy from the Geico commercials, only with less hair.  |
|
|
|
Trump just tweeted that Iran made a big mistake. I would presume the US military is going to respond. The US cannot let its enemy do what can only be described as an act of war and us not respond. If we do nothing, these types of attacks will continue and will possibly escalate. Respond with missles and air strikes. No boots on the ground The problem with this logic is that Iran is not ISIS, Afghanistan, or Iraq. They have advanced mobile weapons systems which they are adept at hiding. In order to secure the Hormuz Strait as a safe shipping lane, this NECESSITATES boots on the ground to acheive the task. Any air strikes will have limited and temporary effectiveness towards this goal. We thought Iraqs army was going to do more too look what happened to it. I think Iran is a paper tiger Are Russia and China paper tigers? They will get involved if there is an invasion. |
|
|
|
I don't know how to stay on topic because I am too busy jerking myself off over my perceived moral and intellectual superiority, projecting, and making wild assumptions. |
|
|
|
Trump just tweeted that Iran made a big mistake. I would presume the US military is going to respond. The US cannot let its enemy do what can only be described as an act of war and us not respond. If we do nothing, these types of attacks will continue and will possibly escalate. Respond with missles and air strikes. No boots on the ground The problem with this logic is that Iran is not ISIS, Afghanistan, or Iraq. They have advanced mobile weapons systems which they are adept at hiding. In order to secure the Hormuz Strait as a safe shipping lane, this NECESSITATES boots on the ground to acheive the task. Any air strikes will have limited and temporary effectiveness towards this goal. |
|
|
|
The economy is doing great, unemployment is low and after nearly a decade of disastrous foreign policy under Obama
Russian bombers taunting the US off the coast of Alaska. Iran just shot down a drone. All hat and no cattle by trying to play nice with the North Korean dictator. Talking big then skulking away and letting the Russians take over Syria and now moving into Venezuela. You really think Trump's foreign policy has been an improvement? Russian bombers have been skimming our coastlines for many years. Iran has shot down US drones before. So you would rather we have more war? |
|
|
|
I am not sure that this is true. I hear some batshit crazy shit from religious individuals ALL the time. That might have to do with the fact that you are totally obsessive and also a bigot. BTW, simple logic dictates people who use all inclusive terms like ALL are generally making false statements. Logically this happening ALL the time is not possible. What is more likely is your bias is heavily weighing your opinion. Maybe I am a bigot when it comes to religious brainwashing. I call a spade a spade. Religious claims are grotesque. They provide psychological comfort to those who need it. Mental drugs if you will. The damage they do to others is ignored. I care about people. Religious people are the victims of this institutionalized con job that is why I strongly feel that religious brainwashing must be exposed for what it is. First of all believing in God is not equivalent to supporting a religion. Second, I think you may want to reexamine your own position, because you exhibit most of the same traits I see in the people you describe, only in a polar opposite direction. You are just another victim of religious indoctrination, you just don't know it because you are convinced your belief system does not qualify. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
