Mob Rule.

Oh get a grip OP.

He shot a defenceless animal with a bow and arrow, tracked it for 40 hours, killed it, then skinned it and took its head. Bastard deserves everything he gets.

Melisandre121 wrote: »

Oh get a grip OP.

He shot a defenceless animal with a bow and arrow, tracked it for 40 hours, killed it, then skinned it and took its head. Bastard deserves everything he gets.

The World Wildlife Fund supports and auctions off big game hunting licenses in Zimbabwe.

This ithe problem with online hate mobs, it's populist hate venting which never really gets to the root of the problem. destroying this guy, however unpleasant he is, wont scratch the surface of the problem.

perhaps take the time to understand why the wwf has this policy and, if appropriate, what can be down to change it. Of course that would require a long term campaign and real analysis of why the policy of auctioning off these licenses exists. No fun for the hate mobs, shrill fools .

endacl wrote: »

What he did was not illegal. It was, however, ****. Most people, when confronted with **** behaviour, let the individual concerned know that what they did was ****, and that they themselves are more than likely, a ****.

In the good old days, this may have been one or two people confronting the **** about his **** behaviour. Now it's one or two, times a million or so.

Fair play to them all.

****.

I just filled in the blanks with banana, much funnier now :pac:

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's the best thing that's happened to the modern world. The ability to deliver justice where the government fails to do so.

yeah. ranting on the internet is "justice" . its usually the same nonsense spouted all the time but in internet rant language

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not, no . however behaving like vermin, either spouting nonsense or attacking someone makes any argument for higher sentences invalid

I don't think it does tbh but that's just me. Government needs to understand that in a democracy, if the people want criminals to be properly punished, then not doing so is undemocratic - and people will, just like every other instance of a government behaving undemocratically, form activist groups to deal with the problem themselves.

There was a guy murdered in the '90s around the corner from my mate's gaff because he was a drug dealer and the locals spotted him out in the small hours one night, thinking he was entering their estate to sell drugs. The neighbours had started up a "Concerned Parents Against Drugs" movement and were patrolling their estate to make sure that nobody was out trying to sell anything in the locality. Beat him to death.

http://www.rte.ie/news/1999/1207/4592-dwyer/

Now I have every sympathy for that fellow. I don't believe in the death penalty for starters, and I don't believe in violent vigilantism. However, while the people who beat him up were indeed scumbags, the ultimate blame for that incident lies at the feet of the government of the day, which ignored locals' demands for dealers to be locked up and removed from their communities where they couldn't continue to terrorise and destroy local families. So ultimately, while the guy who attacked him was a scumbag for doing what he did, the root cause was that the local people had demanded, as is their democratic right, that the law be enforced and that these gangs not be allowed to operate in their estate, and the government had done absolutely sweet f*ck all in response to that. If they had dealt with it themselves, and if this guy had been in jail where he belonged, the entire incident wouldn't have happened.

I guess it depends what your stance is on cause and effect. I believe in looking for root causes - if mob justice and vigilantism are becoming the norm, it's ultimately because ordinary people feel that there is a disconnect between the kind of society they want to live in, and the kind of society that is being enforced by the law. And such disconnects should never be allowed to develop in the first place.

If most people believe that the killing of Cecil the Lion should be a crime, and it isn't, then the government has failed in its democratic duty to sculpt a legal system in the manner that the public wants it to be sculpted. And this kind of thing online is the result.

I have some issues with this argument, although I can see where you're coming from. There's two points I want to raise;

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't think it does tbh but that's just me. Government needs to understand that in a democracy, if the people want criminals to be properly punished, then not doing so is undemocratic - and people will, just like every other instance of a government behaving undemocratically, form activist groups to deal with the problem themselves.

An activist group is one thing. It is campaigning for the law to be changed (although they might do this by peaceful or violent means). A vigilante mob isn't looking for legal sanction, they're looking to deal with the problem themselves by their own authority. For obvious reasons, an activist group tends to last longer.

This is problematic, because not least because the intelligence of a mob is, as defined by Pratchett (I think) the IQ of the stupidest member divided by the number of people in the mob.

The government needs to be cautious in changing the laws based on one particular incident as well. What works in Donnybrook may not work in Kenmare, Co. Kerry and vice versa.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If most people believe that the killing of Cecil the Lion should be a crime, and it isn't, then the government has failed in its democratic duty to sculpt a legal system in the manner that the public wants it to be sculpted. And this kind of thing online is the result.

Well, who is the government in question? The Zimbabwe government is answerable mostly to its own people and a bit to the "international community". The main rage is on the internet in America and Europe amongst ordinary people (and a few celebrities that can never shut up when they might get some airtime out of talking rubbish).

Finally, the internet is a new social phenomenon compared to how societies have dealt with issues in the past. Making laws and shaping society based on what the internet population wants is like doing it based on the graffiti around your capital city. Sure, they may have some good points, but mostly they are uninformed, emotional and speaking anonymously and in the moment (and possibly written on the toilet, that bastion of intellectual thinking :pac:). They do not have to consider any ramifications to their wants.

This is a one-off international kerfuffle that the internet mob happens to have landed on (as much as I agree with a hatred of blood sports). The row spans three different (and much more than three, but I'll make it simple and go by continent) cultures and values. Of everyone involved in this, the Europeans have really the least say in what happens or should happen to Palmer.

I was walking down by Kildare Street earlier and there was a mob gathered.
They were protesting and shouting
' What do we want,
a cure for Tourettes,
When do we want it,
CNUTS'

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

You just p1ssed off the entire Irish tourretes community...you're gonna get some abuse

But how is one supposed to tell the difference between being deliberately insulted by them and just being... Tourettes'd? :pac: