> I never once said you were dumb.
I was treating the "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING YOU ARE IGNORANT OF HISTORY" stuff glibly, and treating it as equivalent. Mea culpa.
How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us.Good point, Alex Jones, I'll keep that in mind.
Like this stuff:
> Its tiring thatI need to spend most of my time in any discussionw ith you correcting invalid assumption you make
> Yes, that's how conversation works
> My point was that the absolutist thinking that you are promoting when talking about this subject is ultimately harmful
I also said that I would like to hear your proposal and in positive terms, i.e., not defined by opposition to another proposal. Tell me what it is, I'll take it as a given that what it *isn't* is the stuff I said. Your first post was vague and included a lot of phrases like this, from the post I'm replying to:
> My case was that we should stop
Here is my proposed course of action: I would like to be able to say what I want to say and listen to whatever anyone else is saying. I intend to build things that make this easier for me and for everyone else, and that will make it harder for anyone to stop that.
I was able to say this concisely and without reference to what it is not.
> trying to sell the narrative
This, in my view, sounds like you think I am saying things I do not believe. I am not selling anything, and this is not a narrative. I'd be happier if people agreed with my proposed course of action, but I believe that enough people already do that the objectives can be achieved. I am not concerned that people disagree with me; I expect that in life. I have no reason to "sell a narrative" and if that's what you're doing, I'm not buying, try the next house. If you've got a course of action you want to propose, that I'd be interested in.
> we must look past it if we are to have a positive impact
Look past it at what? Please just propose something.
🇳🇱
Another post with more energy into telling me that I'm saying something I didnt say (and now reiterated that I didnt say it) than actually bothering to discuss the topic, mostly.
I never said you didnt understand anything, nor that you were ignorant of history. I have pointed out the assertions you have made that were wrong, but made no sweeping accusations of your ability or knowledge beyond that.
None of the quotes you provided are contrary to that and I think thats rather obvious to the reader so I wont break it down piece by piece.
I have also already told you what my proposal is, multiple time now. It mostly boils down to changing public sentiment and acting as an example.
That means drawing respectful, well spoken, people who tend to draw in others to hear their message under a free speech banner as well as demonstrating the harm such censorship has, again by concrete example.
Usually when we look back at history where some form of censorship runs rampant, when and if that winds up being overturned, is due to societies that promote free speech as a legal principle but themselves mostly foster selective forms of speech, not through censorship, but through a moral consensus that tends to outcase people who are otherwise being harmful.
Generally when free speech is curtailed it tends to be in response to groups like the neo-Nazis, which tend to have deplorable messages that serve as a beacon for what people want to silence. If a person stands up and respectfully disscents at a neo-nazi meeting you will likely be confronted with very childish hatred, attacks, and maybe even violence.
Compare that to organizations that have been free-speech in nature and have pushed for acceptance of a free-speech mentality where it may have been previously lacking. If one reads, for examples, the discussions and notes we have left over from meetings of the Sons of Liberty we often see that as long as respectful discourse is maintained dissenting ideas are allowed. Those of a deplorable nature tend to be outcast by the group, and thus creates a social pressure, but otherwise the rebuttals to them are well thought out, educated, and respectful. In the end this combination caused the people to rally behind the idea of free speech as a good force. This of course carried on into the process of defining those civil liberties and the USA's first congress.
So the solution is simple, promote free speech in the groups (informal or otherwise) you are part of, while being a shining beacon of respect and admiration, and you can convince people, it wouldnt be the first time in history for sure.
What doesnt help is an absolutist approach. Free speech of any kind no matter how deplorable or disrespectful gets a stage, and a voice, and is socially accepted among the peers. Legally one should have such a right, but only when the morality of the group is mature enough to ensure the respectful voices are the ones we hear and survive within the group dynamic.
As with most problems of this nature it is a social problem. It isnt solved so much at the legal level, thats just the final step, it is solved at the social one.
> Changing public sentiment to *what*
To a sentiment that feels free speech should be an important legal right which is preserved and exercized.
> What does it have to do with me?
I dont recall saying **you** had anything to do with it either way, aside from the mentality you espouse at times sometimes getting in the way of that intended goal perhaps. but the focus has mostly been a general one and not directed at you specifically, you just happened to respond.
> Did I read correctly that you feel the right is contingent on respectful voices being prioritized?
No, to be more clear. The right from a legal sense should be absolute. However a legal right does not imply a moral right on an individual basis. Individuals should shun members of a group who exercize harmful freedom of speech, but the right to make such speech legally speaking should be preserved regardless.
Yea P has seemed to be confrontational and had an issue with me ever since one of the members from his server started threatening to kill me and opening multiple accounts across multiple servers to harass me. It led to us almost silencing his server on QOTO but ultimately even though the other moderators approved the silence I blocked it and choose an alternative approach (a new feature in the works).
He unfollowed me and became antagonistic in all our communications ever since. Usually anytime he is in a thread with me it is, sadly, mostly him accusing me of things I never said and me needing to waste most of my effort correcting him.
I have no issue with him, I think he means well. So my hope is eventually it will die down and he will go back to acting normal, but for now this is usually the response i get anytime he is in a thread where I have a comment, we will see how long he keeps it up I guess.
For the most part I'm just going to try to ignore it, address it when he does it, and hope eventually the maturity he is otherwise capable of comes back to the surface. He may not even mean it that way, ::shrug:: I suspect in time it will die down on his part.
@freemo >one of the members from his server started threatening to kill me and opening multiple accounts across multiple servers to harass me Sounds like a certain somebody we all know. :gyate_hina_amused: Bu-ut the one in question has been well-behaved as of late AFAIK. @realcaseyrollins @p
In the end he caused little more than noise for me. the bigger issue we had to face was how to empower our users to handle such situations in the future.
> In the end he caused little more than noise for me.
You said you were going to call the cops if he tried to sign up for an account on qoto, and later said you were preparing to call your lawyer. Where'd that go?
Mostly because P is lying. I **did** say something similar in a private conversation to P, but did not make such threats to him directly... I mentioned that we had a lawyer and that when legal issues have come up (threats on a persons life) we have invoked it in the past to protect our members.
I did **not** however suggest that was going to be done againt p, or the offending person here. P had asked what I would do if he continued his assault, used VPN, opening multiple accounts, and continued to threaten the life of people. I mentioned if it escalated to that point that there are legal remedies that could be employed.
P has a habit of putting words in peoples mouth it seems and today he seems to be far worse than usual.
Yes except P seemed to suggest I was "preparing to callyour lawyer"
I never called the lawyer or threatened to do so to handle the istuation with P, I only said I would do so should the user start to attack QOTO directly.
True, though I gave no indication i was "getting ready" to either. In no way did I suggest I was getting the lawyer involved yet.
Well I cant predict the future. But I gave no indication a lawyer was going to be involved against P in any way.
> If X, I will call my lawyer
> Hey, X occurred
> In no way did I suggest I was getting the lawyer involved yet.
coom.png
As for the AR-15 remark, again this was done in a private DM and in no way directed at the user threatening me. As he wasnt included in the message and couldnt see it.
I was told not to worry the threat was most likely hollow. I told him that I wouldnt care if the threat was legitimate. Again on March 23rd this is the exact wording of what was said in a private DM, which is what P is referencing, and again never directed at his user who could not see the DM:
I'm not scared for my life or anything. As I said before I own an AR-15, if the dude was serious he would be dead before he got within 100 yards... But it was still a serious threat all the same and enough for me to take issue
> As for the AR-15 remark, again this was done in a private DM and in no way directed at the user threatening me.
help
i'm :icame: gonna 
coomSince you asked for it, here we go. I don't know which users you sued, I've never heard of a lawyer that is on-call "24/7", but here's some obvious internet jokes from him and you going "COME SAY THAT TO MY FACE MICROPENIS" and that's not even the entire extent of it but whatever, and I'm not gonna do anything past a halfassed grep, I am making shit at the moment and I have wasted way more time than I want to on your nonsense here.
Here's a link to the public thread and I'll just wait for FSE to crash for all the repeated attempts to load that fucker: https://freespeechextremist.com/notice/9tHuU6SK3aitzMyfBI
PLEASE DON'T SUE ME
HEY URRBODY, BE CAREFUL ON QOTO HE WILL SUE YOUR ASS
Fuck's sake, this is tedious.
coom.png
QOTO is a non-profit organization, well funded, and with a lawyer on staff. The lawyer is available to us 24/7
Nothing you just posted is contrary to anything I already said, and I linked / quoted from that thread already. Its a waste of my time at this point. But it should be obvious from that thread I didnt call him micropenis until after he already was being rude, attacking, and threatening to kill people.
Also notice the part about the lawyer was a private message and did not include mkultra and can not be seen at the link you provided. I already quoted that post earlier I beleive as a DM.
I am not upset in the least that you made it public. I told you when we were discussing the thread in DM you were welcome to make it public if you wished, it was private to protect you at the time. You choose to keep it private until not, but your still welcome to make it public as you are doing, no worries.
When did I say i was never going to take legal action against MKULTRA, I did say I was never going to take legal action against you or your server, thats different.
Then try to tell the truth.. you accused me of saying things to him I never said to him, they were said to you in private.
To be clear the message which he is refering to was a **private** DM from march 23rd. This is the exact wording of what I said in response to what I would do if the attacks continued and the user started signing up to QOTO accounts to make the threats:
No clue, he hasnt created an account here yet for me to check. The lawyer I have deals in international law. We have only invoked our lawyer in legitimate threats. We have been successful at stopping DDoS attacks in the fedi in the past through legal action.
> This is the exact wording of what I said in response
After that. This was a follow-up after that shitshow. Plenty of other people were in that thread.
At no point did I threaten to get a lawyer involved with you or the situation, and at no point did I threaten him with my AR-15 as you suggested, or even legal action. Period.
So dont misrepresent it as such.
thats fair, so do I. I made it private because I wanted to protect you from looking bad in the hopes we could find a resolution. I told you, when you objected, you were free to make it public if you wished.
After the third attempt on different days to threaten to kill me I did, admittedly troll him back.
If someone isnt going to be handled and if I have to deal with them I really have no issue **responding** in kind. but lets be clear that was only after multiple instances months apart of him threatening to kill me.
Please stop doing what you seem to be in the habit of doing and rewriting what was actually said and how it actually went down. You make it sound like he was responding to me, not the other way around.
> multiple instances months apart of him threatening to kill me.
This is an accusation that is news to me. As I recall, you started with the "SAY THAT TO MY FACE I OWN A GUN" stuff when he started doing what you termed "ban evasion", and I saw no threats prior to that. Maybe I missed something, but surely you would have brought it up when you described the prior months if it had been the case.
> rewriting what was actually said and how it actually went down.
Fine, post screenshots, then. Otherwise, I'm going to go with what I saw over your account of it.
You are the one accusing me of threatning him with a gun, so you are the only one under any obligation to back up your claim.
I cant screen shot proof of me never saying it because I didnt say it, so there is nothing for me to screenshot.
I did however search through all my past messages for keywords like lawyer, gun, and AR-15 and cant find any instance of me making the threats you claimed.
As for it being news to you he made the threats multiple months apart, thats fine, I really wouldnt be surprised if you are unaware of his past threats. But int he public thread there was a point where the user who made the threats did at least point out that it wasnt the first time I had to deal with him. So he wasnt exactly keeping his past attacks secret, though I can understand if they simply fell under the radar.
Me personally, they arent important enough for me to spend hours digging up what some nobody said months ago. I tried to exit this whole conversation a while ago and its already a waste of my time.
Just tiring to constantly hear you try to put words in peoples mouths that were never said and otherwise manipulating what was said. Honestly, I had thought you were better than that until just recently.
@freemo @p @cowanon @realcaseyrollins how long have you worked for the DOJ
> You are the one accusing me of threatning him with a gun
No, I said you made a bunch of internet tough guy remarks about owning a gun and telling him to come say that to your face.
I never remarked about having a gun outside of a private message between you and the other moderators in private.
I did respond to him threatening my life with a "ok here is my address come do it".. **after** he threatened my life.. your point?
btw I hope you return to normal and start making mature posts again.
> ever since one of the members from his server started threatening to kill me
No, I got annoyed by the entire 80-post DM tribunal, he deleted the threats and they were a response to you talking about guns and telling him to come to your house. I saw that thread, man. I said what I would do, I did it, I kept getting messages, I kept saying that I was done with the part that required my participation.
> became antagonistic in all our communications ever since.
This is incorrect, and in this thread, I got annoyed rather than "antagonistic". Perhaps you confuse the two, perhaps I don't come across how I think I come across, perhaps our communications styles clash, but I have no interest in dissecting this conversation. If you do, feel free to untag me.
> So my hope is eventually it will die down and he will go back to acting normal
In fact, if you'd like to condescend, feel free to untag me as well.
> eventually the maturity he is otherwise capable of comes back to the surface
I think it is a lack of self-awareness on your part. I ask a question, your reply is obscurantist, I make a joke, your reply misses the joke, I say I'm done and don't care, you reply with a page and a half rebuttal, I reach wits' end.
So, to be clear, I do not give a damn if you think I'm doing it wrong; I'll listen if you care to talk philosophy but if you want to go all "your claim of it 'never' happening is obviously false" and "This all seems rather clueless", you don't need to tag me.
Steven 
@p @freemo @realcaseyrollins Freemo isn’t a transparent actor. You don’t have to take him too seriously.
@realcaseyrollins @p @freemo I can’t prove it anymore so there’s no point in giving my specific reason.
Its cool, I dont think you mean to come across antagonistic at all. It would not surprise me if what I'm reading is just annoyance.
I will respond if i have an opinion. These are public forums and if im responding to a comment by you it doesnt mean you are expected to respond to me. It is more so me addressing your opinions and sharing my own, for anyone to comment on if they wish.
When your done with a conversation, walk away.
> I will respond if i have an opinion.
Feel free, but "You just happened to respond to *me*!" is disingenuous for you to say at best.
Yes I responded to a thread, and your opinions are welcome in that regard. But as a public thread it is intended to be open for anyone to read and reply to is my only point. If you dont wish to engage in a conversation, just dont reply.
> I dont recall saying **you** had anything to do with it either way,
Here is a PDF, it's a piece by Grice, pulled from a larger work on linguistics. It lays out the Gricean Maxims. Please have a read, it's interesting stuff, it's an attempt to enumerate and describe the implicit rules that govern how people communicate.
One of the underlying assumptions if you're talking to me is that it is somehow relevant to me. That is, this assumption is warranted, being a pillar of communication: unless you have a reason to say it, you do not say it.
> aside from the mentality you espouse at times sometimes getting in the way of that intended goal perhaps.
As previously covered, I don't think it gets in the way of what I'm doing.
> but the focus has mostly been a general one and not directed at you specifically, you just happened to respond.
I JUST HAPPENED TO RESPOND because you JUST HAPPENED to reply to my post and JUST HAPPENED tag me and JUST HAPPENED to tell me that I do not understand history and that I'm doing it wrong. It is expected that if you say that sort of thing to a person they will respond, and that presenting this as a mere coincidence is really stupid to do.
"Not directed at you specifically" is...I don't even know what to do with this. A brief, incomplete collection of things that were not directed at me specifically, that appeared in replies to me:
> This all seems rather clueless of what was said and just based on your own assumptions...
Not directed at me specifically.
> You also seem to assume that I am somehow ok with censorship laws
Not directed at me specifically.
> but such absolutist thinking, as you tend to engage in, isnt particularly helpful
Not directed at me specifically.
> However if we were to take what you said at face value then it would be hopeless, despite history being against you in that regard
Not directed at me specifically.
> I need to spend most of my time in any discussion with you correcting invalid assumption you make
Not directed at me specifically!
> Another post with more energy into telling me that I'm saying something I didnt say (and now reiterated that I didnt say it) than actually bothering to discuss the topic, mostly.
CLEARLY NOT DIRECTED AT ME SPECIFICALLY!
I JUST HAPPENED TO RESPOND!
I knew it! You're a fucking narcotics agent!> Individuals should shun members of a group who exercize harmful freedom of speech, but the right to make such speech legally speaking should be preserved regardless.
No *speech* is harmful, only illucutionary acts, and I have no position on the conduct of groups of which I am not a member and which do not interfere with anything I'm doing. Given that groups set their own norms, this boils down to...what, precisely?
grice75.pdf
As @realcaseyrollins said, this conversation is getting painful now. I'm done.
hopefully next time the conversation can be more pleasant. But I do not see a hope to recover from this round.
> I never said you didnt understand anything, nor that you were ignorant of history. I have pointed out the assertions you have made that were wrong,
Let's just say that any details about the conversation are not important and I'll just concede every point you care to make about who said what. Not relevant, not interesting.
> It mostly boils down to changing public sentiment and acting as an example.
Changing public sentiment to *what* and *why*? What's your objective and how are you going to get there? What does it have to do with me?
> So the solution is simple, promote free speech in the groups (informal or otherwise) you are part of, while being a shining beacon of respect and admiration, and you can convince people, it wouldnt be the first time in history for sure.
All right. I think this is fine to do. I won't get in your way, and I intend to do similar, but I don't think I'm going to be a beacon of anything, I don't plan to do that.
I think you'll have a much easier time giving people free speech than convincing them that they'd like it if they had it.
> What doesnt help is an absolutist approach.
Absolutism is forbidden forever! Absolutely no absolutism!
You're free to advocate against absolutism, but I don't give a damn what's helpful. I intend to say the things that I believe to be true.
If you're selling clothes, you can always say either "You're too fat for these pants" or "These pants are too small for you", don't get me wrong. There's a huge difference, though, between exercising tact and crafting a message.
But if I perceive that something is the overwhelmingly likely case, I will say so. I'm not selling anything. If you think I'm wrong, you're free to point it out, but if you think I'm saying something unhelpful to your goals, it's a non-starter. I'm not a salesman, I'm a hacker.
> Legally one should have such a right, but only when the morality of the group is mature enough to ensure the respectful voices are the ones we hear and survive within the group dynamic.
Did I read correctly that you feel the right is contingent on respectful voices being prioritized? (By some standard of respectfulness, which standard I do not know.) I think this is a bad approach, but maybe it was a phrasing artifact, so I'll hold off on that until you confirm.
> As with most problems of this nature it is a social problem.
Great. I'm building a home defense system, not trying to convince people to stop robbing other people. Go solve society if you like.