| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On March 18 2026 08:16 KwarK wrote: McDonald’s employees can somehow serve billions of burgers without any executions. Some interactions should have approximately a 0% chance of resulting in execution. False equivalency | ||
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
I don’t know enough about the case to have opinions on it. And somehow nor do you. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On March 18 2026 12:15 KwarK wrote: I don’t know enough about the case to have opinions on it. And somehow nor do you. nice dodge but its not difficult. Youtubers girlfriend goes on vacation He wants to pull a prank by profaning what is dearest to her, her pug. He teaches the pug to raise his paw like a nazi when he sais sieg heil or gas the jews. He uploads the video of the joke when she arrives. He gets arrested, charged, tried, convicted and fined. Do you think this is fine? | ||
|
KwarK
United States44353 Posts
On March 18 2026 12:21 baal wrote: nice dodge but its not difficult. Youtubers girlfriend goes on vacation He wants to pull a prank by profaning what is dearest to her, her pug. He teaches the pug to raise his paw like a nazi when he sais sieg heil or gas the jews. He uploads the video of the joke when she arrives. He gets arrested, charged, tried, convicted and fined. Do you think this is fine? You already demonstrated that you don’t know enough about it to accurately describe it to someone else. I don’t know why you’re pushing this. Surely there are things you do know about that you could describe. | ||
|
oBlade
United States6540 Posts
On March 18 2026 12:36 KwarK wrote: You already demonstrated that you don’t know enough about it to accurately describe it to someone else. I don’t know why you’re pushing this. Surely there are things you do know about that you could describe. You don't have to know why he's pushing it to answer the yes/no question. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On March 18 2026 12:36 KwarK wrote: You already demonstrated that you don’t know enough about it to accurately describe it to someone else. I don’t know why you’re pushing this. Surely there are things you do know about that you could describe. well you don't have to believe me just wiki it and tell me your opinion. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2836 Posts
Man voluntarily posts video to youtube of him doing thing Man suffers consequences for having done hate crime thing Man is given time in court and opportunity to defend self, does not succeed in doing so Consequences are extremely minor and don't actually result in jail time baal continues pushing for some fractional win on the subject despite it being about a man voluntarily posting a video where he says "should we gas the jews" or similar and gets fined a paltry amount How the fuck is this about internet anonymity? lmao | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On March 18 2026 12:51 oBlade wrote: You don't have to know why he's pushing it to answer the yes/no question. I'm not pushing for a yes/no answer at all, he can reply with any nuance he wants, I want him to answer to establish a baseline for what he considers acceptable. My point is that anonymity is important to protect people from state persecution, some made the dumb argument that totalitarian governments don't allow social media anyway so anonymity isn't needed, I pointed out that Assange, Manning, or lets say an Epstein whistleblower would also need anonymity, and that even in the people in the UK go to jail for opinions, and the response I got well ackshally they are only arrested and fined, not put in jail. So what I want to know is if he believes its ok to arrest and fine people for offensive jokes is ok, if he does then theres nothing further to discuss our values are clearly too far apart to, if he thinks if wrong then we can carry on discussing the merits of anonymity. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2836 Posts
On March 18 2026 14:02 baal wrote: I'm not pushing for a yes/no answer at all, he can reply with any nuance he wants, I want him to answer to establish a baseline for what he considers acceptable. My point is that anonymity is important to protect people from state persecution, some made the dumb argument that totalitarian governments don't allow social media anyway so anonymity isn't needed, I pointed out that Assange, Manning, or lets say an Epstein whistleblower would also need anonymity, and that even in the people in the UK go to jail for opinions, and the response I got well ackshally they are only arrested and fined, not put in jail. So what I want to know is if he believes its ok to arrest and fine people for offensive jokes is ok, if he does then theres nothing further to discuss our values are clearly too far apart to, if he thinks if wrong then we can carry on discussing the merits of anonymity. Are you under the impression that "Count Dankula" took steps to remain anonymous in this case? | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On March 18 2026 13:59 Fleetfeet wrote: Man records self doing hate crime thing Man voluntarily posts video to youtube of him doing thing Man suffers consequences for having done hate crime thing Man is given time in court and opportunity to defend self, does not succeed in doing so Consequences are extremely minor and don't actually result in jail time baal continues pushing for some fractional win on the subject despite it being about a man voluntarily posting a video where he says "should we gas the jews" or similar and gets fined a paltry amount How the fuck is this about internet anonymity? lmao No he didn't make a video where he said "should we gas the jews" he made a video of a prank to her GF to condition her dog to raise his paw when he said "gas the jews", its clearly a joke. I believe anonymity is important to protect people from authoritarian governments, you believe governments should punish people for distasteful jokes, there is clearly nothing left to discuss regarding anonymity between us. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On March 18 2026 14:10 Fleetfeet wrote: Are you under the impression that "Count Dankula" took steps to remain anonymous in this case? No, he obviously didn't expect to get arrested, but its very clear that anybody in the UK who want to make edgy jokes should do it anonymously. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2836 Posts
On March 18 2026 14:13 baal wrote: No he didn't make a video where he said "should we gas the jews" he made a video of a prank to her GF to condition her dog to raise his paw when he said "gas the jews", its clearly a joke. I believe anonymity is important to protect people from authoritarian governments, you believe governments should punish people for distasteful jokes, there is clearly nothing left to discuss regarding anonymity between us. I could go either way on it having been prosecuted tbh, though it still has nothing to do with anonymity given that he wasn't fucking trying to be anonymous. It's like if I took a video of myself, well-lit and clear, of me shitting on a police car. I then posted that to my personal youtube video, which obviously has my personal information attached to it. I then get charged with vandalism despite me giggling the entire time I shit on the car, and then whine about internet anonymity as though me filming myself committing a crime should be protected by... who the fuck knows. We have nothing to discuss not because you have insight into my position, but because you refuse to clarify your position on how it's about anonymity at all. I'm sure if count dankula wanted to make cutting commentary about his country's politics, he could do just that without fear of reprisal even without trying to remain anonymous. That's probably why he was charged for the hate crime stuff, and not whining about scotland stuff. -edit- On March 18 2026 14:16 baal wrote: No, he obviously didn't expect to get arrested, but its very clear that anybody in the UK who want to make edgy jokes should do it anonymously. Ah so anonymity isn't at issue because he made no attempt to remain anonymous. Thanks for clearing that up. | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1354 Posts
On March 18 2026 14:16 baal wrote: No, he obviously didn't expect to get arrested, but its very clear that anybody in the UK who want to make edgy jokes should do it anonymously. Seems like there are two issues at hand, whether or not edgy jokes should qualify as hate crimes, and whether or not you should be able to stay anonymous. It seems your larger issue is with whether or not this should be a crime, and not with anonymity. Taking your description of the events at your word, because I don't care about the specific case to look it up, I don't necessarily disagree with you, seems a bit harsh for this to fall afoul of hate crime laws. But with your point on anonymity. Hypothetically, if he did instead post a video encouraging everyone to actually gas the Jews, on youtube. I'm not sure I agree with you on his right to anonymity, because in that case he would have commited, undoubtably, a hate crime (incitement to violence motivated by hostility to a protected characteristic). What exactly are you proposing be the right to anonymity should be here? Should the government not be try to find out who commited an obvious crime under their law because they did so under some expectation of anonymity? Seems like the only problem here is that it was considered a crime. Given, that it was in the opinion of the government that it WAS a crime, it would be weird not to then investigate and figure out who it was that did it? The only problem here is whether or not this was a crime at all, unless you are proposing people can just commit crimes under anonymity and governments should not be allowed to breach that expectation of anonymity even to enforce the law. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On March 18 2026 14:20 Fleetfeet wrote: I could go either way on it having been prosecuted tbh, though it still has nothing to do with anonymity given that he wasn't fucking trying to be anonymous. It's very clear now that anybody making edgy jokes or discussing sensitive topics that could be considered hatespeech in the UK should use anonymity to protect themselves It's like if I took a video of myself, well-lit and clear, of me shitting on a police car. I then posted that to my personal youtube video, which obviously has my personal information attached to it. I then get charged with vandalism despite me giggling the entire time I shit on the car, and then whine about internet anonymity as though me filming myself committing a crime should be protected by... who the fuck knows. False equivalency, shitting on a clear cut crime, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. We have nothing to discuss not because you have insight into my position, but because you refuse to clarify your position on how it's about anonymity at all. I'm sure if count dankula wanted to make cutting commentary about his country's politics, he could do just that without fear of reprisal even without trying to remain anonymous. That's probably why he was charged for the hate crime stuff, and not whining about scotland stuff. We have nothing to discuss if you don't believe that constitutes freedom of speech because that is the purpose of online anonymity, so we won't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on first principles. | ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On March 18 2026 14:29 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote: Seems like there are two issues at hand, whether or not edgy jokes should qualify as hate crimes, and whether or not you should be able to stay anonymous. It seems your larger issue is with whether or not this should be a crime, and not with anonymity. Taking your description of the events at your word, because I don't care about the specific case to look it up, I don't necessarily disagree with you, seems a bit harsh for this to fall afoul of hate crime laws. But with your point on anonymity. Hypothetically, if he did instead post a video encouraging everyone to actually gas the Jews, on youtube. I'm not sure I agree with you on his right to anonymity, because in that case he would have commited, undoubtably, a hate crime (incitement to violence motivated by hostility to a protected characteristic). What exactly are you proposing be the right to anonymity should be here? Should the government not be try to find out who commited an obvious crime under their law because they did so under some expectation of anonymity? Seems like the only problem here is that it was considered a crime. Given, that it was in the opinion of the government that it WAS a crime, it would be weird not to then investigate and figure out who it was that did it? The only problem here is whether or not this was a crime at all, unless you are proposing people can just commit crimes under anonymity and governments should not be allowed to breach that expectation of anonymity even to enforce the law. Finally someone arguing in good faith. The issues are closely correlated since the purpose of anonymity is to protect freedom of speech. It's actually not important in what we personally define as freedom of speech I basically align with the US definition not the hate-speech laws in Europe, but what is important is the point I'm making, that even in an advanced 1st world place such as the UK we see clear overstepping anonymity can protect you, now imagine how vital this is for the rest of the not-so-civilized world. Someone said that China et al banned social media anyway, that's ridiculous there are many countries that allow social media yet people can face serious repercussions for what they post, hell I live in one, I wouldn't dare to post in social media something that could seriously insult the cartel I don't want to appear in a beheading video. Of course there are tradeoffs like misinformation peddlers but I believe the cons greatly outweigh the pros as in most things that restricts freedoms for safety. | ||
|
CuddlyCuteKitten
Sweden2892 Posts
On March 18 2026 14:02 baal wrote: I'm not pushing for a yes/no answer at all, he can reply with any nuance he wants, I want him to answer to establish a baseline for what he considers acceptable. My point is that anonymity is important to protect people from state persecution, some made the dumb argument that totalitarian governments don't allow social media anyway so anonymity isn't needed, I pointed out that Assange, Manning, or lets say an Epstein whistleblower would also need anonymity, and that even in the people in the UK go to jail for opinions, and the response I got well ackshally they are only arrested and fined, not put in jail. So what I want to know is if he believes its ok to arrest and fine people for offensive jokes is ok, if he does then theres nothing further to discuss our values are clearly too far apart to, if he thinks if wrong then we can carry on discussing the merits of anonymity. If that's the best case you have then Britain is doing fine. First of all it has nothing to do with anonymity on social media. The guy posted himself to youtube. Secondly anonymity on social media and this case has nothing to do with whistle-blowing. No one is proposing to force you to use your id to log into the net. You can have whistle-blowing laws just like today and how these people are protected is a separate problem. Third. Society will always have limits on what the majority finds acceptable. Normally there is even an area which the majority finds offensive but that's accepted anyway. I think that's not only fine but quite natural and a part of any countries culture. Legally it can be changed quite easily. You don't want anonymity, you just want people to be able to talk about gassing the jews or burning down the hotells immigrants stay at (preferbly with a location tag) on social media. Failing that you at least want anonymity on social media so people can post it even if it is illegal without consequences. I suggest you win an election and change the rules. Also if you think you can't joke about gassing jews in the UK you obviously haven't watched enough Jimmy Carr. It's all about context which I guess this case didn't have. | ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2944 Posts
On March 18 2026 15:03 baal wrote: It's very clear now that anybody making edgy jokes or discussing sensitive topics that could be considered hatespeech in the UK should use anonymity to protect themselves False equivalency, shitting on a clear cut crime, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech. We have nothing to discuss if you don't believe that constitutes freedom of speech because that is the purpose of online anonymity, so we won't have a productive discussion if we don't agree on first principles. Did you also use an AI summary to read about this case? The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted.[ He claimed it was a joke for his girlfriend on a channel his girlfriend would not actually watch. So the intended audience was the broader internet. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I do think that if you are producing content that is consistent with neo-nazi propaganda you should be at the very least fined for it. Less clear, but still, is the guy that got arrested for going to a Halloween party as the Ariana Grande bomber. Although, as far as I know, that guy didn't get charged with an actual crime. | ||
|
doubleupgradeobbies!
Australia1354 Posts
On March 18 2026 15:25 baal wrote: Finally someone arguing in good faith. The issues are closely correlated since the purpose of anonymity is to protect freedom of speech. It's actually not important in what we personally define as freedom of speech I basically align with the US definition not the hate-speech laws in Europe, but what is important is the point I'm making, that even in an advanced 1st world place such as the UK we see clear overstepping anonymity can protect you, now imagine how vital this is for the rest of the not-so-civilized world. Someone said that China et al banned social media anyway, that's ridiculous there are many countries that allow social media yet people can face serious repercussions for what they post, hell I live in one, I wouldn't dare to post in social media something that could seriously insult the cartel I don't want to appear in a beheading video. Of course there are tradeoffs like misinformation peddlers but I believe the cons greatly outweigh the pros as in most things that restricts freedoms for safety. I'm still not clear on what exactly you are proposing in terms of anonymity? That there needs to be a safe place where people can post/release information while being guaranteed anonymity? Or there needs to be some law(s) where governments are disallowed from access to certain information to maintain anonymity. The former seems irrelevant to the example we are dealing with, since this would be an optional avenue of communication, where you choose to use this service instead of say... Youtube where he actually posted the video. If your point is something like this service should exist, then I guess I agree, that's what something like wikileaks is supposed to be, of course implementation is much more difficult than the principle. Someone will of course need to implement/run the service so there will be de Facto some kind of 'governmnent' of this system. I will address this more later. The latter runs into my problem again, we would be giving carte blanche for people to commit crimes that can be done via communication. Misinformation or edgy jokes are by far not the worst thing you can do via anonymous communication. You could absolutely, for arguments sake, organise an attack on a synagogue, with location and time (pretty sure this would be a crime in every developed country). And if the anonymity overrides even legality, then governments are going to be unable to act in the face of very obvious crime. No government is going to agree to follow that law, and very few populations if any would agree that this would be a good idea. Back to the issue of implementation, I'm just going to assume Laws to enforce 'legal anonymity' are basically a no go. Then just having a service/place to communicate/release information would be what 'anonymity is important' would mean. This is going to need someone to run/implement it. You don't trust governments to do it (i don't disagree with you), but corporations are imo as bad if not worse. These days corporations have the same power and none of the mandate of governments. So you are left with 2 options, either something that technically hides information so that noone has access to identity information, or you have multiple parties run multiple services (eg like having multiple wiki-leaks), and people just choose the best platform for the context (eg the people who run the platform are least likely to directly benefit from selling you out). First option runs into the same problem as 'legal anonymity', people can organise crimes other this platform, noone can figure out who's doing it. They don't have someone like wiki-leaks staff to decide what should be leaked, what is just committing crime on their platform. So really, we are left with one viable option. Multiple 'wiki-leaks likes'. I'm not sure how this would be the business of any government, let alone the UK in this example. If in their opinion, people have commited a crime in under their legal system, in their jurisdiction. They should obviously investigate and determine who is committing the crime, it should be inaccessibility to the identity that is preventing further action, which means 'anonymity' isn't going to be the responsibility of the government who runs up against it. They will and absolutely should try and figure out who's committing crime, if practical limitations of doing this are in their way, so be it, but it's not their job to stop due to some kind of respect for anonymity. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28902 Posts
| ||
|
baal
10708 Posts
On March 18 2026 15:34 EnDeR_ wrote: Did you also use an AI summary to read about this case? Nope I saw his case in the news years ago and started following him, he is funny. The court ruled that Meechan's claim that the video was a joke intended for his girlfriend "lacked credibility" as Meechan's girlfriend did not subscribe to the YouTube channel to which the video was posted.[ He claimed it was a joke for his girlfriend on a channel his girlfriend would not actually watch. So the intended audience was the broader internet. He made a prank to her girlfriend and put it in his youtube channel, he is a comedian making a comedic video. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I do think that if you are producing content that is consistent with neo-nazi propaganda you should be at the very least fined for it. He wasn't making propaganda, he was making a joke, actually he was a communist, he has a massive hammer & sickle tattoo on his chest. | ||
| ||
|
|
Afreeca Starleague
Rush vs Light
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Soulkey
INu's Battles
SHIN vs Cure
ByuN vs Zoun
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
INu's Battles
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://www.irishtimes.com/resizer/v2/HL3RGAFAHSPQWVJ6SWPYG4JVLQ.jpg?auth=8aa5accb8a00d1260145a961375414833594c62dca82f0228f1ea438b4fb17ae&smart=true&width=1600&height=900)
