Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Actually you're not addressing my point. I said good job for your outing of Alex Pro, and repeated that I supported this somewhere in this thread. This isn't about you, tho you seem bent on making it so. I wasn't talking to you at all in this thread, but people who greatly distorted the message the lawyer was giving about what is and isn't legal to post. He was actually helping the websites doing the outing by cautioning them about what might be actionable. I personally haven't gone to any of those sites, but if what he media is saying is true, that it's devolving to the level of threats and harassment, that's not good and should be spoken out against just as much as the riot was. I don't know if you're feeling slightly guilty now or what, that you chose to twist this into an attack on you, but really, you shouldn't feel that way. Writing an employer of on of the rioters is a good thing, sending them threats, as apparently happened is not. See the difference?

So, those teeth are probably your own, since you're fighting with yourself here.

   

What you're seeing is a class of people who see themselves as the arbiters of social morality faced with the prospect of a populace that is ignoring their self-anointed leadership on the issues of the day.

In short, what they want is a population of sheep who don't have any icky ideas about thinking for themselves.

The media and, to some extent, the US and Canadian governments are probably concerned that the unwashed masses of North America might wake up some day soon and assign no authority whatsoever to the government or to the media establishment.

And it's not like they don't have cause to worry.

   

Well here's the main one. It's got just over 100,000 "likes" on FB.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/vancouverriot2011photos

Take a look for yourself. I have a hard time finding any threats at all. What threats there are you'll find in the day or two after the riots. They've become a lot more rare since, so I don't think it's accurate to say the situation with the threats is "devolving."

Given that Nathan Kotylak was outed in print and television media, as well as social media, I don't think it necessarily follows that you can solely blame social media for the threats that the Kotylak family has had to face.

But I suppose ultimately, on some main points were agreed. Both of us are against threats or direct vigilante action. Both of us support legitimate "shaming" such as identifying rioters and making sure employers and sponsors are aware of their activities.

Our main disagreement is the stated moral equivalency between the actual rioters and the online "mob."

I publicly support the outing and public humiliation of the rioters so, yes, this is about me.

   

Go on, say you're sorry. Quite a different tone from your last post. Were you drinking when you wrote the first one?

I've also said, several times that I support public shaming of the rioters and that it's probably more effective than any criminal charges in many cases, especially for first time offenders. (Not if they attacked cops or harmed anyone). So it's about me too. And the news stories aren't only about the websites, but phone calls and e-mails that have been sent. Even the cops are speaking out against this. (Finally doing something proactive like they should have done on the day.)

   

Sorry for what? That you were wrong in your hysterical claims about the "online mob"? Sorry that you failed to ever support your point that the "online mob" were as bad as those doing the rioting? Or sorry that you never even managed to produce much in the way of evidence about these "threats."

You can blame the online mob for Nathan Kotylak's predicament. Or it's hockey's fault. It's our society. It's the mob "mentality...." It's the alcohol. It's the police.

How about this? -- It's Nathan Kotylak's fault because Nathan Kotylak decided to try to turn a police car into a molotov cocktail. Is that really such a radical concept?

   

Yeah yeah, you know all. When even the police are cautioning against over reaction, there's probably something to that. Nathan Kotylak's fault lies in attempting to torch a police car. That doesn't mean he deserves to be threatened. Outed and shamed, yes, but not threatened. But it looks like you can't see the distinction.

   

Yea, "even the police" Zip.

Bet they don't get free Timmies at one drive through eh andy?

   

I like this article. Not only the fact that a private company is going to sue rioters (and I sure hope they can point out exactly who trashed the place) but also the survey at the end of the article.
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loca ... lumbiaHome

   

What exactly have you got your knickers in a knot about now> You'll look for offense anywhere, won't you. Your skin is way too thin to be a cop.

   

Oh behave, just having fun with ya!

   

I'm outraged. Plus andy made me pay for my coffee.

   

I can see the distinction just fine. You seem intent on blaming this "online mob." I supplied you with the largest such site and pointed out that there was nary a threat on there. Clearly, instead of investigating for yourself you chose to wallow in your ignorance.

I pointed at that whatever threat Kotylak received may have come from the print or TV media, but you insist that the vigilante actions must be the fault of the "online mob."

And you've presented absolutely no evidence to support your repeated claim that those of us venting online are just as bad as the rioters who burned, looted, beat strangers and attacked police officers.

In short, you showed up to a battle of wits unarmed and got pwned. But I'm sure, like you do for the rioters, you'll find plenty of other people to blame.

   

He should have made ya pay double. And triple for the donuts.

   

Andy bought me coffee at Starbucks. Said it had to do with his respect for corporate success.

   

Now you're just being mean!

   

Previous  1 ... 4  5  6  7  8  9  Next