They were attacking you for linking CTR with terrorism, I successfully deflected it back to propaganda...alas they stopped the post as that was getting traction. :(
While I don't disagree with all of that article (although it is a bit dramatic), it never even tries to connect CTR to domestic terrorism.
I mean, I always advocate that people read the article and point there criticism toward that. But you posted an article with a shitty title on reddit and it was downvoted. Sounds more like SOP than a conspiracy.
Whether or not it is shitty is an opinion, you are right.
In my opinion it was a bad title because, generally speaking, terrorism requires violence or intimidation and, because of this, the post was downvoted without people reading the article.
it is reasonable to say that paid political propaganda - or government gaslighting - is in fact a form of terrorism perpetrated upon the people.
Sure, if you stretch the definition of terrorism to mean "everything I don't like." What definition does this fall under? It might be shitty or subversive, but it isn't terrorism. Especially considering you can avoid/ignore it if you want to.
Technology is a blessing but it's also a weapon. A weapon of mass destruction giving global instruction teaching us how to hate but does it in a way that we love it.
I think it's bad, just don't think it is violent or terroristic.
Do you honestly believe lying is a human rights violation though? I mean I get if you are keeping an argument to just when the impact is at grand scales, but you seem to take issue with the act itself.
What are your thoughts on lies by omission? What happens about lying to protect someone's right to privacy? I'm not trying to argue I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.
I am sure if a scientific medical monitoring was given - with censors and instruments hooked up to the receiving human being of the paid de-facto gaslighting operation - there would be instances of spikes in blood pressure, heart arrhymias - and more detrimental physical effects - a real physical assault delivered through non physical medium - and if ever expert testimony was given from a doctor of psychiatry - one could surely ascertain results of damages in the form of anxiety, depression, contributing trigger to psychosis
Good luck proving that reading political propaganda is the true cause of that. I don't think your class action problem holds up.
I'm assuming you would be trying to recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress? That is what it sounds like at least. I mean, I've been called a shill on here before. Maybe someone read what I wrote and got pissed off. How do you prove what they read was from CTR and not from an independent actor? You also have to prove the behavior is outrageous. You obviously think it is, but it isn't up to you.
That tort is hard to enough to prove when you have evidence that a person directly affected another person. I can't imagine how you would go about proving it, in a class action, where it isn't clear if the action of the defendant was the only contributing factor to any ill affects the plaintiff suffered.
a real physical assault
Okay, just stop. If you are talking about recovering this at least know the terms you are using means. Assault requires an imminent threat of serious bodily harm (generally speaking, in a civil context). Meaning there is an immediate reasonable belief that you are about to be hurt or killed. You would not be able to prove this from reading something on your computer scream. Even threats over the internet don't necessarily qualify for this so a differing political opinion that may or may not have been paid for certainly wouldn't.
I'll take your word on that being illegal but it doesn't have anything to do with a class action suit. They may have done something illegal but that doesn't mean your rights were violated. If that were the case random citizens could sue a company anytime they were using discriminatory practices.
If the F.E.C. brings a case and wins no one who read propaganda is going to recover for it.
You took that part out of context. I acknowledged it's different when it is on a grand scale with actual consequences. That isn't what OP's reasoning was though.
Also, Goebbles committed suicide. And you should actually read the judgement against Streicher. There was more to it than just spreading propaganda. I guess it is the gallows for you for spreading falsehoods.
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am sure if a scientific medical monitoring was given - with censors and instruments hooked up to the receiving human being of the paid de-facto gaslighting operation - there would be instances of spikes in blood pressure, heart arrhymias - and more detrimental physical effects - a real physical assault delivered through non physical medium - and if ever expert testimony was given from a doctor of psychiatry - one could surely ascertain results of damages in the form of anxiety, depression, contributing trigger to psychosis
Good luck proving that reading political propaganda is the true cause of that. I don't think your class action problem holds up.
I'm assuming you would be trying to recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress? That is what it sounds like at least. I mean, I've been called a shill on here before. Maybe someone read what I wrote and got pissed off. How do you prove what they read was from CTR and not from an independent actor? You also have to prove the behavior is outrageous. You obviously think it is, but it isn't up to you.
That tort is hard to enough to prove when you have evidence that a person directly affected another person. I can't imagine how you would go about proving it, in a class action, where it isn't clear if the action of the defendant was the only contributing factor to any ill affects the plaintiff suffered.
a real physical assault
Okay, just stop. If you are talking about recovering this at least know the terms you are using means. Assault requires an imminent threat of serious bodily harm (generally speaking, in a civil context). Meaning there is an immediate reasonable belief that you are about to be hurt or killed. You would not be able to prove this from reading something on your computer scream. Even threats over the internet don't necessarily qualify for this so a differing political opinion that may or may not have been paid for certainly wouldn't.
You took that part out of context. I acknowledged it's different when it is on a grand scale with actual consequences. That isn't what OP's reasoning was though.
Also, Goebbles committed suicide. And you should actually read the judgement against Streicher. There was more to it than just spreading propaganda. I guess it is the gallows for you for spreading falsehoods.
20 comments
13 SinSkin 2016-10-07
I saw a Hillary shakes out during press conference in Ohio, it's not on the internet anywhere.
1 TheCrimsonCorndog 2016-10-07
huh?
3 SinSkin 2016-10-07
Hillary has a shake she couldn't stop and now I can't find it on the internet.
12 Testiclus_Maximus 2016-10-07
CTR are working harder than ever. Any article or comment that is anti-Hillary gets down-voted to oblivion.
8 Agnos 2016-10-07
They were attacking you for linking CTR with terrorism, I successfully deflected it back to propaganda...alas they stopped the post as that was getting traction. :(
3 BuildTheWalle 2016-10-07
/r/politics Mods are mostly part of CTR. Of course they will removed it.
1 Shotgun2theDick 2016-10-07
why the fuck would you do that...now theyll be expecting us...god dammit you blew our cover, we were going to troll them into oblivion
0 lllaszlo 2016-10-07
Dude that was awesome. For fun you should post it in r/conspiratard and compare results.
-1 rkk2 2016-10-07
While I don't disagree with all of that article (although it is a bit dramatic), it never even tries to connect CTR to domestic terrorism.
I mean, I always advocate that people read the article and point there criticism toward that. But you posted an article with a shitty title on reddit and it was downvoted. Sounds more like SOP than a conspiracy.
6 [deleted] 2016-10-07
[deleted]
2 rkk2 2016-10-07
Whether or not it is shitty is an opinion, you are right.
In my opinion it was a bad title because, generally speaking, terrorism requires violence or intimidation and, because of this, the post was downvoted without people reading the article.
Sure, if you stretch the definition of terrorism to mean "everything I don't like." What definition does this fall under? It might be shitty or subversive, but it isn't terrorism. Especially considering you can avoid/ignore it if you want to.
7 [deleted] 2016-10-07
[deleted]
2 godlameroso 2016-10-07
Technology is a blessing but it's also a weapon. A weapon of mass destruction giving global instruction teaching us how to hate but does it in a way that we love it.
0 rkk2 2016-10-07
You are using the term violence very loosely but okay.
4 [deleted] 2016-10-07
[deleted]
1 rkk2 2016-10-07
I think it's bad, just don't think it is violent or terroristic.
Do you honestly believe lying is a human rights violation though? I mean I get if you are keeping an argument to just when the impact is at grand scales, but you seem to take issue with the act itself.
What are your thoughts on lies by omission? What happens about lying to protect someone's right to privacy? I'm not trying to argue I'm genuinely interested in your thoughts.
3 [deleted] 2016-10-07
[deleted]
1 rkk2 2016-10-07
Good luck proving that reading political propaganda is the true cause of that. I don't think your class action problem holds up.
I'm assuming you would be trying to recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress? That is what it sounds like at least. I mean, I've been called a shill on here before. Maybe someone read what I wrote and got pissed off. How do you prove what they read was from CTR and not from an independent actor? You also have to prove the behavior is outrageous. You obviously think it is, but it isn't up to you.
That tort is hard to enough to prove when you have evidence that a person directly affected another person. I can't imagine how you would go about proving it, in a class action, where it isn't clear if the action of the defendant was the only contributing factor to any ill affects the plaintiff suffered.
Okay, just stop. If you are talking about recovering this at least know the terms you are using means. Assault requires an imminent threat of serious bodily harm (generally speaking, in a civil context). Meaning there is an immediate reasonable belief that you are about to be hurt or killed. You would not be able to prove this from reading something on your computer scream. Even threats over the internet don't necessarily qualify for this so a differing political opinion that may or may not have been paid for certainly wouldn't.
3 [deleted] 2016-10-07
[deleted]
1 rkk2 2016-10-07
I'll take your word on that being illegal but it doesn't have anything to do with a class action suit. They may have done something illegal but that doesn't mean your rights were violated. If that were the case random citizens could sue a company anytime they were using discriminatory practices.
If the F.E.C. brings a case and wins no one who read propaganda is going to recover for it.
1 txstoploss 2016-10-07
We hanged him and were going to hang him for being Nazi propagandists. Why should other 'opinion-shapers' be free to spread falsehoods?
E: corrected re: Goebbels
1 rkk2 2016-10-07
You took that part out of context. I acknowledged it's different when it is on a grand scale with actual consequences. That isn't what OP's reasoning was though.
Also, Goebbles committed suicide. And you should actually read the judgement against Streicher. There was more to it than just spreading propaganda. I guess it is the gallows for you for spreading falsehoods.
-7 AutoModerator 2016-10-07
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1 rkk2 2016-10-07
Good luck proving that reading political propaganda is the true cause of that. I don't think your class action problem holds up.
I'm assuming you would be trying to recover under intentional infliction of emotional distress? That is what it sounds like at least. I mean, I've been called a shill on here before. Maybe someone read what I wrote and got pissed off. How do you prove what they read was from CTR and not from an independent actor? You also have to prove the behavior is outrageous. You obviously think it is, but it isn't up to you.
That tort is hard to enough to prove when you have evidence that a person directly affected another person. I can't imagine how you would go about proving it, in a class action, where it isn't clear if the action of the defendant was the only contributing factor to any ill affects the plaintiff suffered.
Okay, just stop. If you are talking about recovering this at least know the terms you are using means. Assault requires an imminent threat of serious bodily harm (generally speaking, in a civil context). Meaning there is an immediate reasonable belief that you are about to be hurt or killed. You would not be able to prove this from reading something on your computer scream. Even threats over the internet don't necessarily qualify for this so a differing political opinion that may or may not have been paid for certainly wouldn't.
1 txstoploss 2016-10-07
We hanged him and were going to hang him for being Nazi propagandists. Why should other 'opinion-shapers' be free to spread falsehoods?
E: corrected re: Goebbels
1 rkk2 2016-10-07
You took that part out of context. I acknowledged it's different when it is on a grand scale with actual consequences. That isn't what OP's reasoning was though.
Also, Goebbles committed suicide. And you should actually read the judgement against Streicher. There was more to it than just spreading propaganda. I guess it is the gallows for you for spreading falsehoods.