I love Event Horizon. I also love the theory that it takes place in the Warhammer 40k universe.

A little older, but Braindead (aka Dead/Alive) is a really great early 1990’s horror. It is one of Peter Jackson’s earlier films. It is a really good body horror that has a good sense of humor.

You can stream the whole movie on YouTube.

You got me. The dumbass part is where you really got me. I am sure being 15 that is a great stinging rebuke.

Except the difference is you keep adding crimes to my example and then yelling that doxing is a crime. Sure if you harass people after you do it, it is a crime. Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. The moment of contact is the crime. People in the article want these students doxed so they can ensure they don’t get jobs. Comments supporting terrorism will make people not want to hire you.

Also an anonymous Internet forum is different than signing a public statement. But for you, they are the same it seems. I guess nuance is lost on you.

Permanently Deleted

Permanently Deleted

I was so close…

Not normally a fan of Texas but it looks like the best eatin.

If your work has a union, you should join. If you work doesn’t have a union, you should agitate to get one or better yet start to gather signature yourself.

A union is one of the few things in this world that will work for your interests.

Whose comprehension is bad now. My critique was of the self indulgent length of your posts, not the grade level of the writing. It seems concise writing is beyond you.

Trying to read your paragraph upon paragraph of nonsense is draining my will to live. So, if you take it as a win, then good for you. You are a master of grinding out wins though attrition.

I will leave you with a Sharon Adler quote, “Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.”

At this point the reading your word salad is the issue not my reading comprehension. It is becoming more and more difficult to read your dissertation.

Let see if this works:

Unsubscribe

You make my point for me. Neo Nazi should have there names attached to their speech. Every person who went to Charlottesville or January 6th should be named and shamed. When you say vile things you should face the economic consequences.

Then where is the government here? Your reading of the case law makes a claim that protection of anonymity extends to private citizen against private citizen. That is not the case. It is not findable in the case law. You are just plain wrong here.

Just to take this to its logical conclusion, because this is the actual case with the baker. I can say anything I want to gay people and by your logic should be protected. It is only when, after they find out about my beliefs (and make a point to try to use my services), the baker should be forced make the cake or decline their business that it becomes distasteful?

I would have found hate speech distasteful before that but it seems that is just me.

Also, and your logic is pretty pretzeled so I am trying to follow it to its conclusion. Because you agree with the speech, because you believe a bunch of Harvard students, who made a public statement and therefore made themselves targets of publicity, are oppressed, then their identities should be protected. But only because you believe their speech is justice. If it was unjust they should be hauled to the town square?

That is some interesting logic.

You miss the point of the cases. A mayor, a police department, or a board of elections cannot force you to identify yourself online either via law or the courts.

Whether you like it or not it is not illegal for another private citizen to dox you.

I see, if it is speech you agree with and believe that there should be no punishment, then it is find to be anonymous. Is the reverse true, if this was an anti-Arab hate group, would you call for such protection? I doubt it. You would call for them to be unmasked and punished.

Also it is a logical fallacy that to demand the to take greater risk in the name of a cause just to make a valid point. As one who seems as concerned with logic yourself, you should know that.

In the end, I know where your disingenuous argument comes from. You are a rules for thee and not for me kind of person.

You are making my point for me. The founding fathers published the federalist papers for fear of being dismissed because they were at the Philadelphia convention and there was a worry that the paper would be seen as self serving and do damage to their reputations and thereby their income. Their concern was an economic one.

Also when a baker hung a sign refusing to make wedding cakes it most certainly was news. It also caused him great economic harm. As it should.

I get the current fashion of political tribalism dictates that one must defend their side even when it does something awful or ridiculous. However, when you say vile things either on the left or the right you should face the consequences.

Permanently Deleted

If it is not objectionable and there should be no punishment as you say, then there should be no issues with them signing there names to their statement. Correct?

They do not sign their names because they fear economic retribution. So, clearly, you are purposefully misreading my comment or you a troll. Either way own your behavior.

You miss the point of the cases. A mayor, a police department, or a board of elections cannot force you to identify yourself online either via law or the courts.

Whether you like it or not it is not illegal for another private citizen to dox you.

Let me start with where we agree. There are no good guys in this conflict.

Violence is response to speech is always wrong. Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins.

While I do not think anyone is in actual danger at the Harvard campus, if there was a truly credible threat, a person should be protected.

On to where we likely disagree. Issuing a statement that Israel is wholly to blame for this situation the day of a massacre of 1300 civilians, many woman, children, and the elderly, is reprehensible. If a student felt justified in making that statement, they should accept the economic consequences that come with it.

My personal feeling is that while Israel was initially justified in securing their border and trying to recover the woman, children, and elderly Hamas took hostage, that the situation is devolving into collective punishment and a humanitarian crisis.