Random General Headlines

[Sutekh]

That absolutely explains why they want guns, but does it justify it? If the state wants you, it will get you. I have only ever heard of one case of someone successfully deterring the state apparatus until it gave up.

But on that note... trigger happy cops, bad government etc... yep, they're all here. So where is the uprising? Why didn't the Kent state massacre result in the overthrow of the government? Are people waiting for something worse than cops gunning down unarmed kids?

It seems to me that store bought weaponry won't deter the state, and the state can commit atrocities and not be overthrown. So how viable is bearing arms to protect liberty, when it usually can't or won't

I do agree the US is a unique situation, and there's no guarantee foreign style models would work. But could the current model be sincerely described as working, and surely experimenting with reform is preferable to giving up

[allegro]

Yeah, Kent State, 4 died. More people die by cops here every day than one day at Kent State.

U.S. biggest example: Civil War. Which is still pretty “recent” in the minds of a lot of the right wing, particularly the ones still flying the Confederate flag. Also, the Revolutionary War which is a huge part of our history, natch.

But ... Um ... isn’t there already a Guns thread? Can this be moved there?

[playwithfire]

Cynthia Nixon is running for governor and I'm exciiiitteedd

[Mantra]

Some good news for once: https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.c89b3dd4659e

[theimage13]

Cynthia Nixon is running for governor and I'm exciiiitteedd

I'm open to hearing her out, but I'm skeptical. I like her ideologies (including a focus on public schools, among other things), but beyond some activism, she doesn't seem to have any actual political experience. And she seems to be playing the "I'm a New Yorker because I live in NYC" card pretty heavily, which bugs the hell out of me as someone who doesn't live anywhere near the city and realizes that the rest of the state is drastically different in just about every possible way.

But like I said, I leave myself open to any candidate who at least appears to have something intelligent to say, so I have no qualms hearing her out.

[bobbie solo]

I'm open to hearing her out, but I'm skeptical. I like her ideologies (including a focus on public schools, among other things), but beyond some activism, she doesn't seem to have any actual political experience. And she seems to be playing the "I'm a New Yorker because I live in NYC" card pretty heavily, which bugs the hell out of me as someone who doesn't live anywhere near the city and realizes that the rest of the state is drastically different in just about every possible way.

But like I said, I leave myself open to any candidate who at least appears to have something intelligent to say, so I have no qualms hearing her out.

She's an extremely intelligent, true progressive, gay woman who is not corrupted by corporate interests like Cuomo is. That total shift is exactly the type of person I want in charge of NY. I don't care if she's an outsider. Better than a lifelong insider like Cuomo who is as crooked as they come. NY should be just as progressive as California is. If the rest of the state doesn't like it, tough. They can be dragged along by the forward thinking people of the state, like every movement prior in this country.

Or they can beat her. Guess we'll see. But populism is gaining ground every day, and hopefully she can ride that wave over that establishment piece of shit.

[allegro]

I follow Cynthia Nixon on Instagram and I really like her and I think she’s qualified. I’d vote for her. Sure, she’s from the big city but her basic platform is Democratic which is universal.

[mfte]

Arthur Jones, a Holocaust denier described as a Nazi by the Illinois Republican Party, won the Republican primary on Tuesday in the state’s Third Congressional District, a heavily Democratic district that includes part of Chicago and its suburbs, according to The Associated Press.

WHoooooops

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/neo-...nal-seat-.html

[allegro]

Arthur Jones, a Holocaust denier described as a Nazi by the Illinois Republican Party, won the Republican primary on Tuesday in the state’s Third Congressional District, a heavily Democratic district that includes part of Chicago and its suburbs, according to The Associated Press.

WHoooooops

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/neo-...nal-seat-.html

There were no other Republican candidates, so he was the only Republican on the ballot. The Republicans TRIED getting another candidate, even disavowed this candidate, but nobody wanted to bother running because there is no chance of a Republican winning that district.

He got 19,000 votes assumedly from straight-ticket Republican voters who didn't even know who the guy IS.

Democrat Dan Lipinski (the incumbent) got 47,116 votes and won the Democratic Primary. The Democratic challenger, Marie Newman, got 44,992 votes.

Here's the third district map

[sick among the pure]

As a New Yorker from the rural very very red part of the state, I am voting for Cynthia Nixon for sure. I don't care that she's a NYC girl one bit.

[Demogorgon]

reports of an active shooter situation at YouTube headquarters. still breaking so no real detail links yet, but apparently a nearby hospital said they admitted an undisclosed number of victims.

[thelastdisciple]

reports of an active shooter situation at YouTube headquarters. still breaking so no real detail links yet, but apparently a nearby hospital said they admitted an undisclosed number of victims.

Shooter was a female, believed to have died from self-inflicted gunshot.

4 others have been injured, to what degree is not known.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...403-story.html

[Sutekh]

How does it end

[mfte]

Lady shooter. That's different.

[Volband]

Lady shooter. That's different.

USA's gun policy working so well, that it has already reached it's emancipation phase.

[allegro]

How does it end

Get rid of social media.

She hated YouTube because she alleged it restricted her content to keep her from getting ad revenue.

So she drove to YouTube HQ with a handgun and shot up a bunch of people.

Because, of course, that's how all disputes are settled here.

Ugh.

Her brother says he warned authorities about her in advance.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2018/0...nt-new-day.cnn

[allegro]

This is all kind of sad, actually, makes me wonder if a lot of what she was alleging was right, and it just pushed her over the edge:

http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/w...im-aghdam.html

[Demogorgon]

This is all kind of sad, actually, makes me wonder if a lot of what she was alleging was right, and it just pushed her over the edge:

http://nymag.com/selectall/2018/04/w...im-aghdam.html

YouTube has definitely been squeezing out the smaller content creators, which is unfair considering they basically created the streaming video business model. An entire generation started believing they could make videos to make a living, and that's it. And that's exactly how it was, and then YouTube basically pulled the rug out from under them while big creators like that Logan kid still make huge bank even after filming and making fun of a dead suicide victim.

[Volband]

YouTube has definitely been squeezing out the smaller content creators, which is unfair considering they basically created the streaming video business model. An entire generation started believing they could make videos to make a living, and that's it. And that's exactly how it was, and then YouTube basically pulled the rug out from under them while big creators like that Logan kid still make huge bank even after filming and making fun of a dead suicide victim.

And an entire generation is still making bucks off of Youtube (or even the more cancerous Twitch), because as much as they collectively hate the changes in their policy, they worked around it. Also, getting screwed over in business is not something that started happening in 2017; people have lost much more in fields deemed so much more stable than a platform that throws money at you for uploading videos. But even in Youtube, many content creators could (and did) fall into traps long before these monetization changes. There were third party organizations (like Machinima) who could easily pluck naive and trustful Youtubers.

It's fascinating how a person with clear mental illness shoots up a place (even if everyone survived), and the focus shifts on evil Youtube for being an asshole corporation, or Facebook deleting a murderer's profile, so no one's have to put up with the obvious bullshit of trolls who will either praise her actions, or will just post insults towards her. Sure, someone who was doo-doo in the head could obtain a gun, and there were people who seemed to have an idea she might cause harm (ie. she had some sort of rants before in front of them about possibly doing some harm there), but it was Youtube pushing her over the edge... wow.

As much as I dislike YT, it's absolutely mental that all someone needs to do is to be violent and harm others to be the victim in your minds. Nothing and no one pushes a sane person over the edge into trying to murder other people.

[elevenism]

why is the Sinclair thing big news now?

i've known that local news presents the same stories, pretty much verbatim, for at LEAST five years, and that the people providing the scripts leaned to the right.

check these out







and there are a LOT more examples of this shit.
these are all from conan o'brien, but conspiracy-type youtube channels have been doing it longer.
i just didn't want to post a video from infowars or whatever.
but this is nothing new. it's been going on for at VERY least, 6 years, and probably much longer.

[allegro]

someone who was doo-doo in the head could obtain a gun

There is pretty much no way we can keep mentally ill people from buying guns right now, because Americans have a Federal right to medical privacy so gun sellers rely on us being honest on a questionnaire when buying a gun (“are you mentally ill?” __ Yes __ No) and of course that’s not gonna work.

But, this woman was blaming YouTube for discriminating against her because she was Muslim and Arab-speaking, apparently. She had a few abs vids that YouTube flagged as Adult content but she said it was just her fully clothed demonstrating an abs workout, but I guess speaking in Farsi or Arabic. YouTube is admittedly a bunch of morons who allow really dumb shit and don’t allow other shit, and it ain’t too surprising that mentally ill people are either gonna use it for stupid shit or get pushed over the edge by it (proverbial last straw). Ditto for Facebook Live and torture and rapes being broadcast live.

See also: http://www.apa.org/news/press/releas...contagion.aspx

http://thehill.com/opinion/technolog...f-social-media

The shooter’s social media content was likely removed by request from the authorities, btw.

[Demogorgon]

drivel

You just went absolutely off the deep end here. If what you're getting out of that is me blaming YouTube for the event, you'd be wrong. YouTube's changes in policy were definitely a symptom to her mental issues, but they weren't the cause. Saying YouTube doesn't share some responsibility for the problem, however, would be asinine. People get crazy(er) when their sources of income are messed with, and that's a fact. Yes, she was probably already disturbed, but would she have snapped the way she did if her funding hadn't been cut off? You simply can't say with 100% certainty.

As for me calling her the victim, you are, again, way off the deep end, because I did not say that. The victims are the people who were shot by her, obviously. But as for this: "Nothing and no one pushes a sane person over the edge into trying to murder other people." Many, many psychologists would disagree with you. Triggers exist, dude. I don't have them, and maybe you don't, I don't know you so I can't really guess about your own mental state, but many, many people do. Denying it makes it look like you have absolutely no knowledge of mental illness in any way shape or form. Go to the library and read a Psychology textbook from the last ten years.

[Volband]

You just went absolutely off the deep end here. If what you're getting out of that is me blaming YouTube for the event, you'd be wrong. YouTube's changes in policy were definitely a symptom to her mental issues, but they weren't the cause. Saying YouTube doesn't share some responsibility for the problem, however, would be asinine. People get crazy(er) when their sources of income are messed with, and that's a fact. Yes, she was probably already disturbed, but would she have snapped the way she did if her funding hadn't been cut off? You simply can't say with 100% certainty.

As for me calling her the victim, you are, again, way off the deep end, because I did not say that. The victims are the people who were shot by her, obviously. But as for this: "Nothing and no one pushes a sane person over the edge into trying to murder other people." Many, many psychologists would disagree with you. Triggers exist, dude. I don't have them, and maybe you don't, I don't know you so I can't really guess about your own mental state, but many, many people do. Denying it makes it look like you have absolutely no knowledge of mental illness in any way shape or form. Go to the library and read a Psychology textbook from the last ten years.

I was talking to other people as well through your post. But it just sounds surreal, when I finish your sentence: "Saying YouTube doesn't share some responsibility for the problem [and her wanting to murder people], is asinine."

As for losing your income, if I walk to the casino now and put all my life savings on red, then lose it all, then - once again - I am hardly a victim. Living off by Youtube is a privilige to a very few, and many famous Youtubers have other ventures or have Patreon to keep them afloat. Youtube has the right to say they don't like you and they don't want you there, and unless you signed some contract with them, where they promised you their support, you have grounds for nothing. Then again, the richest of Youtubers, Pwediepie got fucked instantly after a slip up, and he even had a contract, so that incident pretty much showed that you are better off trusting a cat not to bite your hand when you scratch its tummy, than Youtube to never fuck you over.

People also get laid down from legitimate jobs for various reasons. I just don't like the narrative, which kinda paints her in a way like she had no other choice, but to cock her gun and try to commit homicide.

@allegro: I don't think any minority would faint from the idea that people, or even companies are discriminating against them.The fact that it exists in everyday life does not justify it, but there are platforms to battle this. Once again, going on a shooting-frenzy, partially to prove that discriminating against your race is wrong, is rather counter-productive.

[Louie_Cypher]

i think it's pretty delusional to think you can have a career doing podcasts, but it's also delusional to think that you can develop an algorithm to accurately judge the content of a video and if it will or will not apeal to advertisers. so the whole things is nonsense. youtube will soon be replaced by twitch anyways. What' does make me smile is the NRA framing that youtube that this some kind of censorship issue(it's not). I'm still hoping they will start agueing my third amendment right's except i'm not in the military and we're not at war but I would like free lodging.
-Louie

[Volband]

i think it's pretty delusional to think you can have a career doing podcasts, but it's also delusional to think that you can develop an algorithm to accurately judge the content of a video and if it will or will not apeal to advertisers. so the whole things is nonsense. youtube will soon be replaced by twitch anyways. What' does make me smile is the NRA framing that youtube that this some kind of censorship issue(it's not). I'm still hoping they will start agueing my third amendment right's except i'm not in the military and we're not at war but I would like free lodging.
-Louie

Ugh, Twitch is even worse, my friend. But if you haven't informed yourself about them yet, then I'd advise against it, so at least the hope remains No, but really. Youtube at least tries to cover their ugliness, but Twitch is the closest we get to electronic cancer.

[allegro]

@allegro: I don't think any minority would faint from the idea that people, or even companies are discriminating against them.The fact that it exists in everyday life does not justify it, but there are platforms to battle this. Once again, going on a shooting-frenzy, partially to prove that discriminating against your race is wrong, is rather counter-productive.

Dude, you’re preaching to the choir. Obvious stuff. We all know that. We are simply looking at potential motive. About triggers for sociopaths and the obvious fact that sociopathic narcissists hang out on social media. What all of us are saying, here, is that we seem to have a lot of people who are are attracted to social media but who are also triggered by social media, and we have seen, in this country, a lot of people wacking out on social media or due to social media. And it isn’t necessarily due to “mental illness.” We’ve had many cases of people here abusing, or raping, or killing people and broadcasting it via social media who were found mentally fit to stand trial.

See "Motive and Intent are Different; Except When They Aren't."

So we were simply discussing motive and/or intent, and what possibly triggered this woman: perhaps a narcissistic sociopath, who started off as a PETA activist but then started getting YouTube hits and perhaps saw herself as a star not reaching her desired audience, then (illogically) saw herself as a victim of a government conspiracy of Nazis; obviously that’s all fucking wrong, but it was still her motive from an investigation standpoint. Investigators know she didn’t work there, it wasn’t a domestic dispute, it wasn’t terrorism, it wasn’t random, etc. That’s what we do, here. It’s how the law looks at it, it’s how an investigation looks at it, so it’s how we reflexively look at it and discuss it. Not as JUSTIFICATION, but as potential motive and intent. NO motive is a “GOOD” motive. But in an investigation, we are at least not chasing a red herring of jihadist terrorism.

I think some people also have the “if you poke the sociopathic bear, you can get bit” mindset, as well. Meaning that social media is filled with sociopaths, so when social media companies start fucking with them then shit might happen. Because a lot of their customers are sociopaths.

Anyway, you’re just being deliberately argumentative and playing devil’s advocate to no good end? This whole topic should be split off into its own thread if we are going to go into the psychology weeds, here.

[bobbie solo]

You just went absolutely off the deep end here.

"This message is hidden because Volband is on your ignore list."

[Dryalex12]

Dude, you’re preaching to the choir. Obvious stuff. We all know that. We are simply looking at potential motive. About triggers for sociopaths and the obvious fact that sociopathic narcissists hang out on social media. What all of us are saying, here, is that we seem to have a lot of people who are are attracted to social media but who are also triggered by social media, and we have seen, in this country, a lot of people wacking out on social media or due to social media. And it isn’t necessarily due to “mental illness.” We’ve had many cases of people here abusing, or raping, or killing people and broadcasting it via social media who were found mentally fit to stand trial.

See "Motive and Intent are Different; Except When They Aren't."

So we were simply discussing motive and/or intent, and what possibly triggered this woman: perhaps a narcissistic sociopath, who started off as a PETA activist but then started getting YouTube hits and perhaps saw herself as a star not reaching her desired audience, then (illogically) saw herself as a victim of a government conspiracy of Nazis; obviously that’s all fucking wrong, but it was still her motive from an investigation standpoint. Investigators know she didn’t work there, it wasn’t a domestic dispute, it wasn’t terrorism, it wasn’t random, etc. That’s what we do, here. It’s how the law looks at it, it’s how an investigation looks at it, so it’s how we reflexively look at it and discuss it. Not as JUSTIFICATION, but as potential motive and intent. NO motive is a “GOOD” motive. But in an investigation, we are at least not chasing a red herring of jihadist terrorism.

I think some people also have the “if you poke the sociopathic bear, you can get bit” mindset, as well. Meaning that social media is filled with sociopaths, so when social media companies start fucking with them then shit might happen. Because a lot of their customers are sociopaths.

Anyway, you’re just being deliberately argumentative and playing devil’s advocate to no good end? This whole topic should be split off into its own thread if we are going to go into the psychology weeds, here.

Yes I agree with this.

Yes, while it's true i constantly am mind rape by horrible thoughts since I was in the second grade...and while I've had a few close calls with ending it, i am still mentally stable, I know what im doing, I know what Im saying, and for the most part i mean everything I say unless it wasn't how I intended it to be.

Pleading to a court on insanity very RARELY works because you really have to be unable to know...like actually mentally damaged. and even if it works, you're stuck in an asylum.

I play devil's advocate only for people i really think can change. If they don't then fuck em, it's as simple as that for me. But it has to have some sort of good reason behind it.

[allegro]

I play devil's advocate only for people i really think can change. If they don't then fuck em, it's as simple as that for me. But it has to have some sort of good reason behind it.

Well, exactly, because if not, then it's arguing for the sake of arguing, which = deliberate drift, which = troll.

[Dryalex12]

In the hyper polarized narratives of this decade, you can't point out potential root causes without people interpreting that as justification. It's so fucking obnoxious. Further using this logic, the reverse happens. Whatever your political alignment is will dictated what you are allowed to accept as a trigger. Because your party says that X is not a justification for something, that means it is completely unallowable to be a trigger... even if the data says it is.

That's why I have none. I believe in common sense.

Mind you I have no problem with Republicans but they have yet to prove anything that gets my full on support. I fucking miss the pre-Regan Rep's....

Guess that makes me independent?