Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
 Hate Speech Rant Spam 
Author Message
Level 20
Level 20
User avatar

Cash on hand:
124,064.35
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:10 am
Location: SR388
Group: Special Access
Post Hate Speech Rant Spam
Greetings all I write here not out of hate or fear based on any person or group of people, but out of fear for society's well-being as a whole.

Today I felt that it was necessary given that laws are now in power with broad undefined terms that we come to an agreement on such legal definitions before allowing such laws to continue to be valid. Recently a lot of broad legal terms have been created and are flying around in legislation and law, I wish to propose a definition for the following terms and make arguments based on law as to what aspects should be omitted from punishable offences based on these broad terms yet to be defined.

The following terms are broadly or completely undefined:

Far-Left, Far-Right and Hate Speech.

First I need to say that as we are all equal no one group or list of groups is entitled to protection from hate speech any more so than any other group. All citizens must be given the same protections against Hate Speech or there is no equality and I would hereby challenge the law on grounds of legal bias against the excluded groups.

If we are still on the same page I would like to define legal hate, not as a thought crime, but as physical crime where hate is to be a verb meaning the expression of hate via “Actions done out of anger”.

I would like to start today by arguing where the line of hate speech crosses the boundaries of the right of free speech. To do that After thinking long and hard, hate speech has multiple categories which must be addressed separately;

Incitement, Enticement, Aggressive Speech, and Threats;

Threats:
I will have to define Threats first as they are a form of hate speech that may be included in the other word's definitions.

I define threats as verbal ultimatums of proposed physical, economic, social, political, public, corporate or private actions against any party directly to them or in a manner where they can read or otherwise listen to or view these propositions.

In Example: Telling someone you will get their boss to fire them. Telling someone that they better be careful or a crime will happen to them. Telling someone you will ban them, telling someone you will digital hack or digitally or physically steal from them. Telling someone you will hurt them or someone else will hurt them. Etc.


Incitement:
I define Incitement along with the similar sounding word Excitement(as a verb), in this case Incitement being the exciting(verb) of a second party (or group of second parties) to perform some action out of anger against any Third Party to whom you are opposed for whatever reason. Thus encouraging people to perform physical acts of hate such as; physical abuse, defamation (slander), or (with a 4th party to an Nth party in some position of authority) demanding, shaming or otherwise not asking but telling (forcing under pressure) someone or a group to perform an action whether legally, socially, politically, and or financially harmful to the third-party's well-being or ability to pursue their livelihood.

In Example:

Telling your friend or a group of protesters to go harass, obstruct in line of duty, physically push, shove, hit, kick, or other wise make harmful physical contact with the party, threaten; to jail, take away their placement at work, take away their place at a social or public platform, or any business, organization, or their ability to visit any property for which they are allotted private or public access to.

In a short definition: “To speak to call for actions to be done against someone with no legal authority to deal such legal judgements as you have decided to be done to them”, it is a crime of usurping the power of the courts and government by an individual or organized group.

The protections of the person would then be that they cannot be wrongfully touched, stolen from, their property damaged, them fired, them forced to resign, or any crime done against them, jailed, removed or banned from any public or social establishments because of the first party's speech that incited people to rally against the third party. In simple terms “you can't flame someone till they are abused or ostracized from anywhere, that is hate speech!”

By forcing your opinion to take precedence over some aspect of someone's life just because you don't like them or don't agree with them, is a literal physical act of hate, where your words are causing real actions to be done against them. In such cases Employers cannot fire, layoff or otherwise give-in to public demand( such as judgement). If people have a real legal problem by law with any person in any company or organization they can take that person to court and have the judge issue punishments or dismissal from their position. But individuals do not have the legal right to enact their own judgements or laws based on their beliefs. And companies and organizations can be sued or legally disciplined for acting on public outcry by the party alleging they were harmed by such outcry.


Enticement:
I define Enticement as the making of speech directly to a person that would promote that second party to be angry at you. Such as “trigger words/phrases/topics, Social or verbal triggers to anger” See the definition of Goading.

I Argue that if Enticement were punishable, it would devolve into a complete removal of freedom of speech even of the law! where a person's rights would be left up to their own definition. Literally opening the flood gates where anything that anyone claims to be angered by then becomes illegal to be spoken of around them and allots people who are more socially active to have more legal power because they simply spend more time claiming hate speech was done upon them, or simply because they become quick to jump and hide behind hate speech law just because they feel uncomfortable. In addition if enticement were punishable, it would devolve the law itself, because anything that any one finds makes them angry is thus illegal to say around them, they could and do and already have decided that there are some laws written and voted for by elected officials which they find make them angry, thus such a law would be unable to be enacted upon this individual without violating hate speech law (you would literally have to read the law and tell them they are going to be judged by the law and have them get you arrested and prosecuted for hate speech against them). This would enable political domination by groups claiming to be effected by hate speech. Punishing enticement is in and of itself a threat to the law and stability of the country and a direct threat against the validity of the government itself.

Further more on the grounds that when someone is goaded (enticed) they become angry, any action done out of anger then falls under the definition of legal hate as verb. Considering enticement as a hate crime punishable by law would then under these conditions empower and encourage people who are goaded to take action based on their own hate making them the criminal not the victim. This is unacceptable! This cannot be allowed in hate speech law!. To protect a person's right to become hostile because of someone else's words, is immoral and encourages people to become mental children who refuse take and can't sustain even the slightest criticism or even an opinion they don't approve of without resorting to legitimizing their own Actions of Hate against that party. Punishment for goading or enticement is incompatible with freedom of speech, and various other human rights, and basic inalienable rights such a right not to be physically attacked, pushed, or otherwise physically abused. And yes there is evidence this is happening, people come to peacefully express an opinion or ask a question and are kicked punched thrown down to the ground having things thrown at them, and later if they can be tracked to an employer will have their employer harassed till the person is fired. This is unacceptable childish behaviour where people in our society can't even have discussions about things they've already made their mind up about, even if they are not in a legal position of power relevant to make that decision!

Punishing a person because their speech was deemed to make another person angry is ludicrous and self-damning to society and the law. On these grounds I move that this should be removed from any hate speech articles or laws.


Aggressive Speech:

I define aggressive hate speech as speech produced out of anger where other parties are not given an opening to make a rebuttal and where presented verified evidence either is refused to be cross-examined (such as in wilful ignorance) or not allowed to be supplied or otherwise rejected or to produce any physical expression or threat of expression of hatred.

Such as in a Rant based on anger at them personally for any reason where the speaking party does not stop speaking for the other party's response to any proposed point or refuses to end the conversation. It can be a form of harassment where a person is followed beyond the initial point of meeting and ranted at out of anger even after the person tells them not to follow or that they are invading personal space.

People have rights, if they don't like what someone is saying and they are in public, they have a right not to listen, they have a right to object, argue, and state their opinion, they have a right to personal space, they have a right to put someone on notice if they get too close or deem the conversation to have taken too long that they can end the conversation at that time, if someone continues to follow them after they walk away and continues the conversation after that time they have a right to walk into a private or public place and demand the other party not follow, and have rights to call for law enforcement to aid them in getting away from the person, they also have a right to file a restraining order after such a time as police need to be called to separate them. They can't punish or ask for punishment to the other party, unless the other party performs criminal acts against them (or Threats or Incitement of others to perform an action).

These are my definitions of the topic of Hate speech and they are applicable to all persons for any reason, regardless unspecified such as race, religion, gender, orientation, or any other topic people can come up with.


I now must define Far-Right;
I propose to the court that a judgement of a person being “Far-right” must be on an individual basis based on their words or actions themselves (not the actions of or support of any group they are affiliated with).

This is to protect observers or persons who may not fully support but partially agree with some articles of the far right so as they do not perform any of the actions to follow in my definition of far right behaviours.

Far-Right:
I define Far-right as persons who genuinely believe in, follow, preach or enact any hate speech (as I just defined previously) against any party for any reason as a move towards any ideological, religious, group or personal goal. Including calls for non-legal actions against any party, or direct actions against any party, or aggressive speech against any party, or threats against any party.

Far-Left:
I define Far-Left as people with a disdain for the elected and legally enacted legal systems, or a refusal to enforce some laws or selective enforcement of the law (as it suits them) rather than going through legal motions to replace or rescind the law they disagree with. As well as persons who actively attempt to promote civilian judgements based on Ideology, religion, proposed or believed research, race, gender, personal values, group or personal goals. Including calls for non-legal actions against any party, or direct actions against any party, or aggressive speech against any party, or threats against any party. And persons who refuse to listen to opposition, or attempt to rig voting systems, create non-legal courts or arbiter councils and attempt to undermine the pursuits of the law pertaining to anything they find they are unable to agree on for any reason.

_________________
mepsipax

Image

got any?

His name is not Robert Paulsen, His name is Gregory Matthew Bruni, he won so hard.

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:10 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 5
Level 5
User avatar

Cash on hand:
-3,020.50

Bank:
22,817.40
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:11 am
Location: S☠LAYMAN'S RING!!! VIGILANTE! QUELLER OF SOLICITATION, WARMONGERING, USURPATION, AND COUPS! ^^
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Hate Speech Rant Spam
This is merely definition. Nothing to rant about.

Remember that the legal term for enticement would be provocation. Once that is done, it is a speech no longer because it transits into action. In plain English, it's not talking anymore, it's an infringing act beyond speech!

I can't define the narrow-minded object of either far left or right. The meaning changes over time, but maybe there's a conceptual core? Hate speech can be quite nasty and could borderline as an act.

Anyways, this is spam so I couldn't take this topic too seriously. May peace reign.

_________________
Regurgitator monster back in progress, pixel by pixel...
corea=tyherantno puppet/censorship/(enemy) alien/trojan horse/keepsake-less warmongering vermin;
Spoiler: show
Fraud Alert Renewal Month: March, June, September, and December
My ZDoom mods
OMG! Barry Manilow! Avenue Q! GG Allin! Brothel - Dirty Deeds!
Viva Le Resistance! (threat: see ☠Image☠ below...)
Metal tracking mods
Spoiler: show
Some random inspirational image for the reg monster goings, after rl of course! IT RETURNS!
https://archive.org/download/two_specific_missing_metal_albums/audio/needs_no_fix/L_OWS.mp3
when fighting a rooks of reg, raining down hork spawns.


Sat Sep 08, 2018 10:16 pm
Profile WWW
Level 5
Level 5
User avatar

Cash on hand:
-3,020.50

Bank:
22,817.40
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:11 am
Location: S☠LAYMAN'S RING!!! VIGILANTE! QUELLER OF SOLICITATION, WARMONGERING, USURPATION, AND COUPS! ^^
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Hate Speech Rant Spam
Here you go jury of no authority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitemen ... ial_hatred
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_and_incitement

You know what's really fucked up? The U.S. doesn't have laws to prevent against inciting hate crimes! Yes, you have say fuck the U.S.A. then. Well then, up to arms, men! Oh yeah, if there is an attempt to commit crime, it's technically a crime outside the thought or intent or it.

_________________
Regurgitator monster back in progress, pixel by pixel...
corea=tyherantno puppet/censorship/(enemy) alien/trojan horse/keepsake-less warmongering vermin;
Spoiler: show
Fraud Alert Renewal Month: March, June, September, and December
My ZDoom mods
OMG! Barry Manilow! Avenue Q! GG Allin! Brothel - Dirty Deeds!
Viva Le Resistance! (threat: see ☠Image☠ below...)
Metal tracking mods
Spoiler: show
Some random inspirational image for the reg monster goings, after rl of course! IT RETURNS!
https://archive.org/download/two_specific_missing_metal_albums/audio/needs_no_fix/L_OWS.mp3
when fighting a rooks of reg, raining down hork spawns.


Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:09 pm
Profile WWW
Level 20
Level 20
User avatar

Cash on hand:
124,064.35
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:10 am
Location: SR388
Group: Special Access
Post Re: Hate Speech Rant Spam
my whole point was to point out that there are two clearly different things and one of them cannot be punishable without the destruction of civility and law.

it's different if you provoke a person to go out and hurt someone else, that is a crime of illegal activism.

but if you allow law to punish provokation as in "you just said something which makes me angry" then, define what is justified anger? and thats where it get devolved into a onesided exclusive notion to protect certain groups that someone deems "at risk" makign them permanent victims at which point there can be no civility and everything they demand you do is law because to refuse would make them angry but their anger is protected.

this is why provoking someone to attack yourself cannot be punishable hate speech. heck I see black people do it all the time "yeah what? officer? you gonna hit me? yeah I dare you you come hit me!"

It's perfectly legal mockery. And needs to stay legal. it's not the provoker's fault that the other party is easily irked and can't control themselves from performing actions based on their anger.

_________________
mepsipax

Image

got any?

His name is not Robert Paulsen, His name is Gregory Matthew Bruni, he won so hard.

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:25 pm
Profile E-mail
Level 5
Level 5
User avatar

Cash on hand:
-3,020.50

Bank:
22,817.40
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:11 am
Location: S☠LAYMAN'S RING!!! VIGILANTE! QUELLER OF SOLICITATION, WARMONGERING, USURPATION, AND COUPS! ^^
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Hate Speech Rant Spam
joshex wrote:
it's different if you provoke a person to go out and hurt someone else, that is a crime of illegal activism.

but if you allow law to punish provokation as in "you just said something which makes me angry" then, define what is justified anger? and thats where it get devolved into a onesided exclusive notion to protect certain groups that someone deems "at risk" makign them permanent victims at which point there can be no civility and everything they demand you do is law because to refuse would make them angry but their anger is protected.
If there is a law that protects certain interest groups, it would be biased and should/would be more of a policy. Laws are supposed to protect all (members/citizens) of a (sovereign) society, or even international allegiances/pacts/agreements. To provoke is usually defined as to incite violence. Usually, (most civil) societies prefer to refrain from violent instances in its root cause(s) to side effect(s). In the scope of causing anger, it depends on various conditions. Sometimes, it is not intentional. Incitation is often considered intentional, and its purpose is to incur violence. Getting back to "protected anger", that would be privilege, but no such law can prevent even the protected persons from provoked violent attacks; this is true if the protected person did provoke one that can definitely kill him. If there is a law that protects provocation, it would be a law outside (most civil) societies. Certainly, the natural law doesn't protect provocation as privilege!

joshex wrote:
this is why provoking someone to attack yourself cannot be punishable hate speech. heck I see black people do it all the time "yeah what? officer? you gonna hit me? yeah I dare you you come hit me!"

It's perfectly legal mockery. And needs to stay legal. it's not the provoker's/provocateur's fault that the other party is easily irked and can't control themselves from performing actions based on their anger.
Perfect mockery? I doubt that should stay legal, otherwise, what would be the law? It is the provoker's/provocateur's fault that encourages violent action, that is, to incite. The target does not have to be the provoker, but a different subject/object. To even allow incitation in the slightest instance would be dominoes for The Great Game of incitations. Once speech turns into violence, it becomes an act beyond speech. To not prevent/punish provocation is to incite violence.

joshex wrote:
it's different if you provoke a person to go out and hurt someone else, that is a crime of illegal activism.
As you said, it's a crime to provoke a person to go out and hurt someone else. It's like a robber robbing a store, but failed and tried running away from the scene of the crime. Just because the criminal failed to outright execute the crime, doesn't mean he is immune from arrest/indication/prosecution, especially if he is caught red-handed. Another example would be the inquisition, but that's another story. Let us just say that with this hate-mongering around, hospitality will dissipate in the face of flesh-chewing roaming/ravaging barbaric/zombie conquest. Um... ah!

_________________
Regurgitator monster back in progress, pixel by pixel...
corea=tyherantno puppet/censorship/(enemy) alien/trojan horse/keepsake-less warmongering vermin;
Spoiler: show
Fraud Alert Renewal Month: March, June, September, and December
My ZDoom mods
OMG! Barry Manilow! Avenue Q! GG Allin! Brothel - Dirty Deeds!
Viva Le Resistance! (threat: see ☠Image☠ below...)
Metal tracking mods
Spoiler: show
Some random inspirational image for the reg monster goings, after rl of course! IT RETURNS!
https://archive.org/download/two_specific_missing_metal_albums/audio/needs_no_fix/L_OWS.mp3
when fighting a rooks of reg, raining down hork spawns.


Sun Sep 09, 2018 6:10 pm
Profile WWW
Level 20
Level 20
User avatar

Cash on hand:
124,064.35
Posts: 2044
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 11:10 am
Location: SR388
Group: Special Access
Post Re: Hate Speech Rant Spam
RV-007 wrote:
joshex wrote:
it's different if you provoke a person to go out and hurt someone else, that is a crime of illegal activism.

but if you allow law to punish provokation as in "you just said something which makes me angry" then, define what is justified anger? and thats where it get devolved into a onesided exclusive notion to protect certain groups that someone deems "at risk" makign them permanent victims at which point there can be no civility and everything they demand you do is law because to refuse would make them angry but their anger is protected.
If there is a law that protects certain interest groups, it would be biased and should/would be more of a policy. Laws are supposed to protect all (members/citizens) of a (sovereign) society, or even international allegiances/pacts/agreements. To provoke is usually defined as to incite violence. Usually, (most civil) societies prefer to refrain from violent instances in its root cause(s) to side effect(s). In the scope of causing anger, it depends on various conditions. Sometimes, it is not intentional. Incitation is often considered intentional, and its purpose is to incur violence. Getting back to "protected anger", that would be privilege, but no such law can prevent even the protected persons from provoked violent attacks; this is true if the protected person did provoke one that can definitely kill him. If there is a law that protects provocation, it would be a law outside (most civil) societies. Certainly, the natural law doesn't protect provocation as privilege!

joshex wrote:
this is why provoking someone to attack yourself cannot be punishable hate speech. heck I see black people do it all the time "yeah what? officer? you gonna hit me? yeah I dare you you come hit me!"

It's perfectly legal mockery. And needs to stay legal. it's not the provoker's/provocateur's fault that the other party is easily irked and can't control themselves from performing actions based on their anger.
Perfect mockery? I doubt that should stay legal, otherwise, what would be the law? It is the provoker's/provocateur's fault that encourages violent action, that is, to incite. The target does not have to be the provoker, but a different subject/object. To even allow incitation in the slightest instance would be dominoes for The Great Game of incitations. Once speech turns into violence, it becomes an act beyond speech. To not prevent/punish provocation is to incite violence.


define justified anger. that was my challenge.

people can (and have) said that just being in the same room as you is you provoking them. people have said that even people they've never met and never talked to in person are provoking them. people have said that trump winning an election provokes them. saying anything to anybody could provoke them (see trigger words).

as you can see there is no possible way to allow punishment of provokation without defining what is justified anger, but to do so is subjective to bias. in the US, in the UK, they specify groups who can be deemed "protected", they specify only certain topics that can be deemed "provoking".

to do that is to justify and encourage those peoples anger, and encourage them to be easily angered and to lack an ability to control themselves, easily jumping to actions based on anger against people they just don't approve of.

that is chaos.

_________________
mepsipax

Image

got any?

His name is not Robert Paulsen, His name is Gregory Matthew Bruni, he won so hard.

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Mon Sep 10, 2018 5:31 am
Profile E-mail
Level 5
Level 5
User avatar

Cash on hand:
-3,020.50

Bank:
22,817.40
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:11 am
Location: S☠LAYMAN'S RING!!! VIGILANTE! QUELLER OF SOLICITATION, WARMONGERING, USURPATION, AND COUPS! ^^
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Hate Speech Rant Spam
I'm sorry, this is just trolling. Challenge? I thought this was supposed to be a rant against hate speech! More like a anti-hate speech rant! I don't know, that's how I see it, but okay. Usually, I let hate/anti-hate go and go with the flow. But, coming from a background in situations where bitches do use these motherfucka things to justify their fucking crimes and shit like that, I sympathize AGAINST the abuse of "false pretenses" (that's a crime too!).

Justified anger is like the lawful anger, divine anger, no anti-Jerry Springer bullshit anger. Because, you know, there's justice or whatevers. The only problem is when justified anger becomes outside the law, when it have individual definitions that takes on imperial ambitions. When, true, censorship takes hold, and finally crimes against humanity manifest itself like hanging people for speaking out against the new authoritarian government, campaigns where agents carry out orders against free speech, and finally, war waged based on false prophecy of a holy people; it's like a rampaging monster.
|
Basically, you are right, justified anger is just anger; when people feel unjustified, they feel the need to change regardless of positive/negative outcome. Let us just say that justified anger is just two composite terms in a incompatible formula. Now, there is justice and anger. Justice is like a set of beliefs and values defining law and crime. It sets enforcement from harm. Anger is like a set of emotions, one that desires the need for change. It can be communicated in either expressive or violent measures. Anger is not justice. For example, one child can be angry because he can't afford the trip to Solomon's/Sulayman's fountain of ever flowing copper. Least it is still around to be bathe in for absolute feminine transformation, as commanded by God! ;). Anyways, back on topic, there is no such thing as justified anger because that would be a policy based on emotions, not on foundations. When justice or law is set, there is a matter of reasoning or just beliefs. When anger is set, it claims a said right. So no, justified anger or just anger in the context of the topic is saying of a "claimed" right. Well, guess what, sister! You don't got the right of the pedophile nights! Now, you go away or else! As for everyone else, get ready to get on all fours and pounce on master!

Obviously, if nobody got the definition of what provocation means. Provocation means to act or speak as to incite! I'm pretty sure that incitement is at least a incomplete crime noted by most societies. To incite as to start imminent lawless action (or disorderly conduct), is not considered free speech. You can look it up if anyone get skeptical. To remove such a law would allow a clear and present danger encouraged by free and violent speech to be protected. All actions ought to be credibly accounted for. It's like fucking mob violence. We not going to let a red-handed hiding behind a cover pussy cult leader off so easily, right? Even Attila the Hun got balls to go out conquering and dying while keeping diplomacy.

Once again, wrapping it up, justified anger is not a law, it's a "claim" of right or privilege. Well, guess what? So does every conscious being in the world, and they gonna bite to hold onto their bitches or kill them. If some asshole starts saying that justified anger is the law, it's actually a false pretense. Claim your legal right and fight the natural fight. Maybe, justified anger is even HATE, HATRED, and LOATHING! I once knew a person who became the eternal visage of hate, hating all love and life. That person happens to use "justified anger/hate" and provoking/inspiring hate at the same time! Sometimes, I pray to God during this oracle. I hope there's no hater bitching cuz they obviously want no room for love. One more thing, freedom of speech is a right (to speech, not action), not law; provocation is to incite and usually inspires hate, remember that. All right, guys, do your holy thing and shout, "SULAYMAN!!!" (or something like that).

_________________
Regurgitator monster back in progress, pixel by pixel...
corea=tyherantno puppet/censorship/(enemy) alien/trojan horse/keepsake-less warmongering vermin;
Spoiler: show
Fraud Alert Renewal Month: March, June, September, and December
My ZDoom mods
OMG! Barry Manilow! Avenue Q! GG Allin! Brothel - Dirty Deeds!
Viva Le Resistance! (threat: see ☠Image☠ below...)
Metal tracking mods
Spoiler: show
Some random inspirational image for the reg monster goings, after rl of course! IT RETURNS!
https://archive.org/download/two_specific_missing_metal_albums/audio/needs_no_fix/L_OWS.mp3
when fighting a rooks of reg, raining down hork spawns.


Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:43 pm
Profile WWW
Level 5
Level 5
User avatar

Cash on hand:
-3,020.50

Bank:
22,817.40
Posts: 587
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:11 am
Location: S☠LAYMAN'S RING!!! VIGILANTE! QUELLER OF SOLICITATION, WARMONGERING, USURPATION, AND COUPS! ^^
Group: Registered users
Post Re: Hate Speech Rant Spam
Sometimes, going a bit further, it goes down to the matter of honest/dishonest feelings.

On one hand, there's manipulation and there's actualization. The growth of a human being is at hand! As there is aggression versus assertion.

Getting down to the core feelings of emotions.
1. Anger
2. Fear
3. Hurt
4. Trust
5. Love, which is the combination of the 4 above.

It really depends on how it is being used. Personally, I believe hate speech is usually a matter of manipulation using any of the 5 core feelings. I did know of a certain group that happens to make stuff up in an attempt to manipulate or even commit crimes under false pretense! Trust me on that I hate shit like that. It sicken me. However, if there is genuine (that means true) feeling, there can be actualized hate speech. Now, I don't know from a psychologist's point of view studying hate speech because sometimes that turns into politics rather than a personal thing. That's as far as psychology goes.

_________________
Regurgitator monster back in progress, pixel by pixel...
corea=tyherantno puppet/censorship/(enemy) alien/trojan horse/keepsake-less warmongering vermin;
Spoiler: show
Fraud Alert Renewal Month: March, June, September, and December
My ZDoom mods
OMG! Barry Manilow! Avenue Q! GG Allin! Brothel - Dirty Deeds!
Viva Le Resistance! (threat: see ☠Image☠ below...)
Metal tracking mods
Spoiler: show
Some random inspirational image for the reg monster goings, after rl of course! IT RETURNS!
https://archive.org/download/two_specific_missing_metal_albums/audio/needs_no_fix/L_OWS.mp3
when fighting a rooks of reg, raining down hork spawns.


Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:45 pm
Profile WWW
Level 38
Level 38
User avatar

Cash on hand:
14,701.90

Bank:
0.00
Posts: 20738
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 11:44 pm
Group: Sysop
Post Re: Hate Speech Rant Spam
Just laugh at 'em.

_________________
Image
Yeap.

_________________
Click the icon to see the image in fullscreen mode  
1 pcs.


Fri Nov 23, 2018 5:37 pm
Profile E-mail WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 9 posts ] 
 

Similar topics

 
I fucking hate UPS.
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: KingGMY
Replies: 7
I hate myself
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: cluelessfurball
Replies: 4
spam spam spam.
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: MelDy(^-^)
Replies: 15
Spammity spam spam
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: Bubba
Replies: 7
I HATE JUSTIN BEEBER
Forum: ./General Spam
Author: cluelessfurball
Replies: 2
Top


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Mods Database :: Imprint :: Crawler Feeds :: Reset blocks
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.

Portal XL 5.0 ~ Premod 0.3 phpBB SEO