Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Well as your good self said once.

And I stand by the fact that the media should be held to a higher standard than regular Joe Soaps and should have a duty of care to report facts and show people events and news rather than promoting their corporate-led opinion.

How this fits into your argument is baffling?

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

And I stand by the fact that the media should be held to a higher standard than regular Joe Soaps and should have a duty of care to report facts and show people events and news rather than promoting their corporate-led opinion.

How this fits into your argument is baffling?

Let me help you.

What you said was propaganda was dangerous, to downplay it was dangerous it causes problems in society.

Deleted User wrote: »

Inaccurate reporting/propaganda is a very real cause of a lot of society's problems as the media we consume shapes our thoughts, beliefs and values. To downplay it's importance is dangerous.

This cowards document is at the extreme end of propaganda, but you strangely class it as, well just words really.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. I don't think there should be a punative punishment for being in the possession of (what is essentially) words.

So what you are doing is downplaying it's importance which you yourself think is dangerous.

Any clearer?

MrFresh

People upset about the law against possessing the document should have a read of our Offences Against the State Act

Wibbs

MrFresh wrote: »

People upset about the law against possessing the document should have a read of our Offences Against the State Act

Oh I hear you MrF and I'm not exactly happy about them either.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Let me help you.

What you said was propaganda was dangerous, to downplay it was dangerous it causes problems in society.



This cowards document is at the extreme end of propaganda, but you strangely class it as, well just words really.



So what you doing is downplaying it's importance which you yourself think is dangerous.

Any clearer?

What I said was propaganda from media outlets is dangerous.

I don't think that the public shouldn't be allowed access information.

So no. No clearer

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

What I said was propaganda from media outlets is dangerous.

But from mass murderers it's not?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

But from mass murderers it's not?

As funny as it may seem, no. I don't think that allowing people to read the reasons behind why a warped individual killed 50 people is a bad thing. My main issue is a news agency skewing facts to alter public opinion. It's not the case in this one.

This is what a mass murderer thought, this is why he committed this atrocity.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think that allowing people to read the reasons behind why a warped individual killed 50 people is a bad thing.

Who says it contains honest reasons, like it is some document into his soul, a full and frank explanation as to why he was a cowardly scumbag?

But you can't see anything potentially bad arising from it?

Didn't he state himself he was inspired by other cowardly mass murdering "documents" including Breivik?

Listen you were right before you nearly broke your neck trying to do a hilarious U-Turn, violent extreme propaganda is extremely dangerous, to play down the significance as you said to "just words" is also extremely dangerous.

That's not just my opinion, you obviously agreed with me (once) and counter terrorism organisations and security services sure has hell agree with us.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Who says it contains honest reasons, like it is some document into his soul, a full and frank explanation as to why he was a cowardly scumbag?

But you can't see anything potentially bad arising from it?

Didn't he state himself he was inspired by other cowardly mass murdering "documents" including Breivik?

Listen you were right before you nearly broke your neck trying to do a hilarious U-Turn, violent extreme propaganda is extremely dangerous, to play down the significance as you said to "just words" is also extremely dangerous.

That's not just my opinion, you obviously agreed with me (once) and counter terrorism organisations and security services sure has hell agree with us.

Jesus Christ! It's actually painful trying to talk to you without being misrepresented so I will leave it at this:

I think it's ridiculous to have a law that gives the possibility that you may spend 10 years in jail for possession of, or 14 years for showing someone else, what is the reasoning behind why a deranged lunatic killed 50 people.

I have never made a U turn. I stand by what I said. The news outlets are extremely biased and should be held to a higher standard of fact over emotion than Joe Public.

Punishing people for having a document is absurd.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus Christ! It's actually painful trying to talk to you without being misrepresented so I will leave it at this:

Ah, I used your own words the ones you typed to negate your own argument.

Did you misrepresent yourself?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Ah, I used your own words the ones you typed to negate your own argument.

Did you misrepresent yourself?

No.

When talking about media, I said that bias and propaganda was a bad thing. I said they should report facts.

When talking about being in possession of the manifesto of a murderer, I said that you shouldn't be put in jail for owning or showing someone else.

The fact that you think you can conflate these two to prove that I am negating my own argument is laughable and pathetic.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

No.

When talking about media, I said that bias and propaganda was a bad thing. I said they should report facts.

When talking about being in possession of the manifesto of a murderer, I said that you shouldn't be put in jail for owning or showing someone else.

The fact that you think you can conflate these two to prove that I am negating my own argument is laughable and pathetic.

What's the difference, essentially they are both propaganda, one is the most vile and extreme type that encourages others to mass murder, the other I'm guessing you think is the BBC?

You stated propaganda is dangerous, down playing propaganda is even more dangerous - something you have indulged in all morning.

The creation and spreading of extremist propaganda should be criminalized, how else do you think they can try and minimize it, hold hands and sing a few songs?

Or should they listen to the experts who know?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

What's the difference, essentially they are both propaganda, one is the most vile and extreme type that encourages others to mass murder, the other I'm guessing you think is the BBC?

You stated propaganda is dangerous, down playing propaganda is even more dangerous - something you have indulged in all morning.

The creation and spreading of extremist propaganda should be criminalized, how else do you think they can try and minimize it, hold hands and sing a few songs?

Or should they listen to the experts who know?

I think that the importance of an unbiased media can't be understated. Whether it be BBC, Breitbart etc, it should be important that outlets are held to account for reporting based on emotion/agenda rather than fact.

I also said you shouldn't be subject to 10 years in jail for having the ramblings of a deranged lunatic on your computer. If that was the case, anyone who had any religious texts in their house could be prosecuted for the same.

Neither of these examples are the same and your repeated attempt to conflate the two is bizarre.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

I also said you shouldn't be subject to 10 years in jail for having the ramblings of a deranged lunatic on your computer.

The same legislation covers the distribution of incident images of children, etc. That's why you have such a high term.

But you are calling anyone that is criminalized and prosecuted for holding or distributing extreme content an injustice, or in your words "absurd".

There has been a couple of people prosecuted and jailed in NZ for distributing ISIS propaganda, do you think that is absurd?

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

The same legislation covers the distribution of incident images of children, etc. That's why you have such a high term.

But you are calling anyone that is criminalized and prosecuted for holding or distributing extreme content an injustice, or in your words "absurd".

There has been a couple of people prosecuted and jailed in NZ for distributing ISIS propaganda, do you think that is absurd?

I've not said that. I think you should probably read what I said.

And if you want to conflate a manifesto with child pornography then off you pop. I am not going down that rabbit hole with you.

I do think it is absurd that being in possession of any propaganda (be it ISIS or Islamaphobic) could land me 10 years in jail. Absolutely.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

And if you want to conflate a manifesto with child pornography then off you pop. I am not going down that rabbit hole with you.

I'm not conflating anything, I am pointing out to you what is covered under the same laws and that is why the headline sentence is so high. Nice deflection though.

Deleted User wrote: »

I do think it is absurd that being in possession of any propaganda (be it ISIS or Islamaphobic) could land me 10 years in jail. Absolutely.

Well no, if I am gauging you right and by all means correct me if I am wrong you think it absurd it should be a crime at all.

So back to my question if you don't mind, just for clarity.

Boggles wrote: »

There has been a couple of people prosecuted and jailed in NZ for distributing ISIS propaganda, do you think that is absurd?

When you are ready, by the way I think one got 10 months and the other 3 years.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

So back to my question if you don't mind, just for clarity.



When you are ready, by the way I think one got 10 months and the other 3 years.

Absolutely. If their only crime was being in possession of Isis propaganda or for showing it to other people, then yes, I think it is beyond absurd.

Boggles

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely. If their only crime was being in possession of Isis propaganda or for showing it to other people, then yes, I think it is beyond absurd.

Fair enough.

Patty Hearst

https://twitter.com/johnpaulpagano/status/1110579872932552706

Bizzaro land, New Zealand Mosque leader claims Mossad is behind attack

Boggles

Patty Hearst wrote: »

Bizzaro land, New Zealand Mosque leader claims Mossad is behind attack

Freedom of speech init.

Wibbs

Boggles wrote: »

Freedom of speech init.

It is and society is also free to pillory him for it.

MontgomeryClift

Patty Hearst wrote: »

https://twitter.com/johnpaulpagano/status/1110579872932552706

Bizzaro land, New Zealand Mosque leader claims Mossad is behind attack

Sure, blame the Jews again. Mossad did it, and it had nothing at all to do with Muslims' growing occupation of the white man's territory.

Patty Hearst

Boggles wrote: »

Freedom of speech init.

Yeah, and there are people in the Islamic community who would blame Israel for everything from bad weather to their milk going sour

Call Me Jimmy

Boggles wrote: »

Of course it does, in North Korea and China it is working perfectly.

What you are trying to do is conflate censorship with removal of violent propaganda, something that isn't new. Contagion and Copy Cats are not new either, this coward would be a glaring example.

But even "censorship" of actual facts work and have positive results. Very simple example.

I was reading about a bridge in the America which was a popular place for people to commit suicide, the press were asked to stop publishing the suicides.

People jumping off the bridge dropped by 90%.

No ones free speech is being trampled in NZ, they are doing something very specific, for very specific reasons.

And in NK, China, there are infinite of examples of the negative impacts of censorship far outweighing what you could possibly put forward or in your bridge example of private censorship.

Your most interesting point was re: ISIS propaganda. At the height of the ISIS attacks in Europe, I thought for a moment monitoring or criminalising people who view such material might be a safe bet in terms of resource allocation, with the assumption that heavy surveillance was going on behind the scenes anyway.

But I came to the conclusion that there has to be a hard line or principle taken in defense of the decentralised flow of information - including taking the position that ISIS propaganda should not be illegal in and of itself. If we weigh that up, maybe there will be a higher number of vulnerable people who are brainwashed into doing harm and subsequently more deaths. Someone could show us a chart and say 'the number of ISIS attacks went up after we made it legal to view ISIS propaganda', but once you start thinking about the details, the difficulties and effects of legislating you start hitting a lot of problems with nebulous and highly subjective definitions. What are the defining characteristics of ISIS propaganda and is it completely useless for the public to be able to know what they are saying? Do we then have to just trust the government and their approved journalists to report to us what extremists say?

In the bridge example, the numbers look good, 90% reduction in suicides at the bridge but censoring information about suicides sweeps the larger problem under the rug. The official suicide rate has risen in Ireland since the 1950s but there was no willingness to report back then. It's estimated that the real level was very similar to what it is now - it just wasn't identified and thus we couldn't attempt to solve it. Maybe with censorship we could reduce the nationwide rates, or we could ban ropes and see a decline. There are endless arguments for withholding information / tools and keeping people in the dark for their safety and to be consistent you'd have to follow them all so long as you can provide a measurement of the improvement in safety.

Boggles

Patty Hearst wrote: »

Yeah, and there are people in the Islamic community who would blame Israel for everything from bad weather to their milk going sour

Not just in the Islamic Community.

But you know like I said.

Freedom of Speech init.

Patty Hearst

Boggles wrote: »

Not just in the Islamic Community.

But you know like I said.

Freedom of Speech init.

Yeah lots of lefties seem to blame Israel for everything too.

Boggles

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

And in NK, China, there are infinite of examples of the negative impacts of censorship far outweighing what you could possibly put forward or in your bridge example of private censorship.

Your most interesting point was re: ISIS propaganda. At the height of the ISIS attacks in Europe, I thought for a moment monitoring or criminalising people who view such material might be a safe bet in terms of resource allocation, with the assumption that heavy surveillance was going on behind the scenes anyway.

But I came to the conclusion that there has to be a hard line or principle taken in defense of the decentralised flow of information - including taking the position that ISIS propaganda should not be illegal in and of itself. If we weigh that up, maybe there will be a higher number of vulnerable people who are brainwashed into doing harm and subsequently more deaths. Someone could show us a chart and say 'the number of ISIS attacks went up after we made it legal to view ISIS propaganda', but once you start thinking about the details, the difficulties and effects of legislating you start hitting a lot of problems with nebulous and highly subjective definitions. What are the defining characteristics of ISIS propaganda and is it completely useless for the public to be able to know what they are saying? Do we then have to just trust the government and their approved journalists to report to us what extremists say?

Prove your Thesis.

What tangible real life difficulties or effects have occurred in combating the spread of any extremist violent propaganda and how does that outweigh someone walking into a building and blowing up a bunch of children for instance?

Boggles

Patty Hearst wrote: »

Yeah lots of lefties seem to blame Israel for everything too.

Not just lefties.

Lots of different people.

MrFresh

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Sure, blame the Jews again. Mossad did it, and it had nothing at all to do with Muslims' growing occupation of the white man's territory.

Sounds like an attempt at justifying it.

batgoat

Patty Hearst wrote: »

Yeah, and there are people in the Islamic community who would blame Israel for everything from bad weather to their milk going sour

There's also Muslims who came out in support of Jewish people last year in relation to the Synagogue attack. Same for Jewish people supporting the Muslim community at the moment. You're desperately attempting to tar a large proportion of Muslims as antisemitic. Meanwhile it seems like you're dealing with your own bigotry.