It's on this day for honoring fathers I have to confess I feel mixed emotions. The truth is, I don't truly know my father, and after what he did to my mother, I don't want to know him and neither does she.
And I won't mince words as to why. I was born of my mother being raped.
However, in that my mother chose not to curse me for the sins of my father and decided I should be allowed to be brought into this world anyway. I couldn't be more grateful, as I eventually met the man who I now call Father with pride, and while we may not share blood, I don't need a drop between us to consider him my true Father.
Granted, it wasn't an easy road to that end. My mother had been married twice before. Her first husband I share nothing by a name with, one of the few things I got from that worthless whoremonger deadbeat that I'm proud of. Her second husband was not much of an improvement and after being twice burned, she was quite reluctant to get married again, despairing of finding an honorable man to be worthy of her.
However, she met my father, John Edward Vaughan, and they've been married since 1997. They've had a long and faithful marriage to this very day, to the joy of them both, as he left his first wife after she was caught committing adultery, and both are very proud that their spouse has proven to not have the slightest doubt to grant the other they might forsake them for another.
As for me, back when they first married, while I was finally sure my mother had found a worthy husband, I confess I wasn't so sure about whether we'd be compatible as a father and son. His interests and mine diverged wildly, and in our early years was a teething process where I found we often drove each other up the wall.
That said, I also found some surprising things too. While not the most sensitive of people, he could be empathic to my concerns as I grew older when I needed him most. While admittedly not an intellectual, his insight into human nature far surpassed my own. And most surprisingly, when I found myself consumed by weaknesses of a spiritual nature, God invested him with the strength to hold me up morally when I wasn't sure what to do.
As a result of his example and not wanting to squander my mother's bringing me into this world despite my birth father's sins, I made several resolutions. I would never countenance harm to a woman or children. I would honor his respect for me as he returned it. And finally, if I couldn't have a father by blood I could know and be proud of, then I would drop the "step" from the man who proved even more worthy than I deserved and honor him like I had been born his own son.
And in retrospect, I'm glad I have. I'm not keen on having children myself, nor am I interested in marriage, but I'm grateful my mother found a good man to be a father to her children, me especially. All I can do in return even if I remain single and childless is to not disrespect the miracle of someone I can proudly call my Father because that man and my Heavenly Father are owed that from me, and both deserve my loyalty for all they have done to bless me.
Sunday, June 21, 2020
Friday, June 19, 2020
Daniel's Shadow: A Persona 4 inspired Fanfic (with some Christianity lessons included)
I've recently been playing Persona 4 Golden, and I always wondered what it would be like to face my Shadow, the side of myself I'm ashamed of I would like to pretend doesn't exist.
Since I'm more than well aware of my flaws, hope Persona fans enjoy this. Also, for those who have ever felt I don't live up to my Christian ideals, I'm going to address those concerns, so for you Christians in the audience (and those who think I'm doing a bad LARP as one), this also is something of a Bible recap of things where I admit what I haven't always lived up to, and I hope this fictionalized account of my own flaws serves to help you all face your own failings and avoid making my mistakes.
Here goes:
As Daniel slowly felt himself regain consciousness, he realized the floor felt cold and unfamiliar as his eyes slowly adjusted to the almost supernaturally bright light.
As the feeling reentered his body and he stood up, he realized he was no longer in his own home, but instead something that looked like it was right out of some cliche JRPG, complete with a massive demonic throne, eerie supernatural lights that seemed glaring despite no apparent source, and a rolling mist that made his search for the door impossible.
"Enjoy the decor? You always had a flair for the dramatic."
As Daniel whirled around, he saw a figure that looked just like himself sitting on the throne, except they were wearing armor fit for a classic fantasy hero, which clashed horribly with the skull and horn motif of the throne. As the figure got up, a chill went through his spine as he realized the armored figure indeed wore his own face, and the piercing gaze of contempt from the yellow eyes of his apparent clone regarded him mockingly as he demanded:
"What is this?!"
The figure laughed drily.
"Spare me the faux ignorance, Daniel. You've always loved dramatic confrontations of good versus evil since your childhood. You always wanted to be some great hero slaying demons and saving the world because you've always thought it was cool. Even your Christian faith is nothing more than an extension of that black and white view of reality."
Daniel was stunned to hear what sounded so much like himself with creepy monotone reverb in their condescending voice, and sure enough, the room he was in he recognized, it was like a mishmash of every final confrontation with every supreme evil in all of JRPG history.
As this occurred to him, the figure approached, produced a sword from behind his back, and tossed the blade at Daniel's feet, voice still dripping with contempt as it continued on:
"Oh, don't even bother denying it. You have professed to hate violence, but you are thrilled at the idea of being one to use a blade and spell to destroy all that is evil in video games. You've told others you love your enemies, but if you got a chance to slay them and rationalize it as a moral act, you'd be the first to do so if it meant you'd be innocent of committing murder in the eyes of God. And let's not forget, you profess humility, yet you'd love the attention for being one that is recognized for doing great deeds."
With that, the figure gestured at the blade as if Daniel should pick it up, and as Daniel hesitated, the figure continued speaking:
"This is a scene right out of your fantasies. You are facing someone who is trying to destroy your spirit by breaking your will, and you'd love to show the world it will remain unbroken. Despite the sin of pride, you'd burst with more than you could ever handle if you were victorious over me. You're vain, you're pretentious, and a fool who believes he can enter a viper's den without ever becoming tainted by the venom."
As the figure finished, Daniel moved to grasp the blade, and his doppelganger laughed as demanded,
"That's right, Daniel, accept it. You're no moral paragon, you're nowhere near what Jesus wants you to be. You may be innocent of the crimes of those who believe false witness about you, but your true crime is even greater. You put on a facade of morality to hide that deep inside, you're a coward. Despite all that talk you've made of bravery before men and how God is your only judge, the judgment of men haunts you."
The grip on the blade in Daniel's hand tightened as he fought to keep his composure, and his counterpart just kept talking:
"Getting through to you now, Daniel? Your morality is a joke. You are a vain, self-centered liar who puts up a show to the world that you want to rise above your sins when you haven't moved past them an inch. You proclaim to be free of lust and greed, but your lusty greed to be recognized for such is even greater than if you were actually guilty of true degeneracy. All you are a shallow, hollow hypocrite, Daniel Cullen. You may know the Word of God, but when it comes time to face true judgment, you live in fear that very Word will condemn you in the world after the world of Men, and you can't face that."
The figure paused, then added with as much snide as possible,
"Just like you can't accept you're me, and I'm not a great evil to slay, I'm what you are in the mirror!"
Daniel froze, his face a miasma of conflict and desperate urge to deny what he was hearing as the armored one wearing his own face stepped forward, sword at the ready, proclaiming triumphantly:
"THAT'S RIGHT. I AM YOUR SHADOW, THE TRUE SELF!"
Since I'm more than well aware of my flaws, hope Persona fans enjoy this. Also, for those who have ever felt I don't live up to my Christian ideals, I'm going to address those concerns, so for you Christians in the audience (and those who think I'm doing a bad LARP as one), this also is something of a Bible recap of things where I admit what I haven't always lived up to, and I hope this fictionalized account of my own flaws serves to help you all face your own failings and avoid making my mistakes.
Here goes:
As Daniel slowly felt himself regain consciousness, he realized the floor felt cold and unfamiliar as his eyes slowly adjusted to the almost supernaturally bright light.
As the feeling reentered his body and he stood up, he realized he was no longer in his own home, but instead something that looked like it was right out of some cliche JRPG, complete with a massive demonic throne, eerie supernatural lights that seemed glaring despite no apparent source, and a rolling mist that made his search for the door impossible.
"Enjoy the decor? You always had a flair for the dramatic."
As Daniel whirled around, he saw a figure that looked just like himself sitting on the throne, except they were wearing armor fit for a classic fantasy hero, which clashed horribly with the skull and horn motif of the throne. As the figure got up, a chill went through his spine as he realized the armored figure indeed wore his own face, and the piercing gaze of contempt from the yellow eyes of his apparent clone regarded him mockingly as he demanded:
"What is this?!"
The figure laughed drily.
"Spare me the faux ignorance, Daniel. You've always loved dramatic confrontations of good versus evil since your childhood. You always wanted to be some great hero slaying demons and saving the world because you've always thought it was cool. Even your Christian faith is nothing more than an extension of that black and white view of reality."
Daniel was stunned to hear what sounded so much like himself with creepy monotone reverb in their condescending voice, and sure enough, the room he was in he recognized, it was like a mishmash of every final confrontation with every supreme evil in all of JRPG history.
As this occurred to him, the figure approached, produced a sword from behind his back, and tossed the blade at Daniel's feet, voice still dripping with contempt as it continued on:
"Oh, don't even bother denying it. You have professed to hate violence, but you are thrilled at the idea of being one to use a blade and spell to destroy all that is evil in video games. You've told others you love your enemies, but if you got a chance to slay them and rationalize it as a moral act, you'd be the first to do so if it meant you'd be innocent of committing murder in the eyes of God. And let's not forget, you profess humility, yet you'd love the attention for being one that is recognized for doing great deeds."
With that, the figure gestured at the blade as if Daniel should pick it up, and as Daniel hesitated, the figure continued speaking:
"This is a scene right out of your fantasies. You are facing someone who is trying to destroy your spirit by breaking your will, and you'd love to show the world it will remain unbroken. Despite the sin of pride, you'd burst with more than you could ever handle if you were victorious over me. You're vain, you're pretentious, and a fool who believes he can enter a viper's den without ever becoming tainted by the venom."
As the figure finished, Daniel moved to grasp the blade, and his doppelganger laughed as demanded,
"That's right, Daniel, accept it. You're no moral paragon, you're nowhere near what Jesus wants you to be. You may be innocent of the crimes of those who believe false witness about you, but your true crime is even greater. You put on a facade of morality to hide that deep inside, you're a coward. Despite all that talk you've made of bravery before men and how God is your only judge, the judgment of men haunts you."
The grip on the blade in Daniel's hand tightened as he fought to keep his composure, and his counterpart just kept talking:
"Getting through to you now, Daniel? Your morality is a joke. You are a vain, self-centered liar who puts up a show to the world that you want to rise above your sins when you haven't moved past them an inch. You proclaim to be free of lust and greed, but your lusty greed to be recognized for such is even greater than if you were actually guilty of true degeneracy. All you are a shallow, hollow hypocrite, Daniel Cullen. You may know the Word of God, but when it comes time to face true judgment, you live in fear that very Word will condemn you in the world after the world of Men, and you can't face that."
The figure paused, then added with as much snide as possible,
"Just like you can't accept you're me, and I'm not a great evil to slay, I'm what you are in the mirror!"
Daniel froze, his face a miasma of conflict and desperate urge to deny what he was hearing as the armored one wearing his own face stepped forward, sword at the ready, proclaiming triumphantly:
"THAT'S RIGHT. I AM YOUR SHADOW, THE TRUE SELF!"
Thursday, June 18, 2020
Some legal analysis of the DOJ recommendations for changing how Section 230 works.
One of the last things I kept tabs on before leaving the Kiwi Farms in disgust over how I got shit on by certain parties there for things I dare any of them to say as formal accusations in a court of law was how the US Department of Justice is seriously considering tweaking, weakening, or, at worst, abolishing the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.
Now, despite how cruelly I was lied about and abused there, what was done to me does not approach libel as far as I'm concerned, at least nothing I'd bother a courtroom over. I have the truth on my side, none of my accusers will ever dare back up with they say without the shield of an internet username, and given how the political winds are blowing, I predict the Farms will be shuttering its doors in a few months anyway, so let them take my public activity out of context and spread all sorts of garbage with maybe a tiny grain of truth and over 99.99% insulting invective. I'm a big boy, I can handle that.
Regardless, I bring that up because while I find the idea of anything they say being used against me as retarded, the recommendation the DOJ is proposing would be the death knell of a site like the Farms. If even a casual implementation of those reforms goes through, Null might as well shut down things ASAP before he's up to eyeballs in legal issues. Now, I actually am not pleased with this. Being able to talk shit about people and their public activities should be perfectly legal, even if that discussion is insulting and filled with falsehoods, distortions, and more cherrypicking than an orchard, and I still defend the right of those who have done so to me to keep going, even if I'm of the opinion they can take a long walk off a short pier and I wouldn't weep for them.
However, here's what the DOJ is proposing and why it would be suicide for any social media site or forum to allow such unfettered speech if they implement this in the most casual manner possible.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-recommendations-section-230-reform
(original in italics, my comments in bold, emphasized original text in bolded italics. I am a layman, so I want it known upfront I have no legal training, this is just my understanding of how it reads based on my layman perspective of law from a US based perspective.)
So far, so good in overview. This means, in simple English, they want online fora like forums, microblogs like Twitter, and places like Facebook to continue to block speech that is obviously in violation of federal law like that inciting crime while still encouraging lawful public expression.
On the face of it, I can concur with the overall sentiment expressed thus far.
Let's be real here. There has been a naked and unapologetic movement on many major social media platforms and some of the more well-known forums to hew to certain narratives and bend, warp, and twist their terms of service to expel those who have not said anything unlawful, merely something that goes against whatever political or social axe the owners of said platforms wish to grind.
Now, Section 230 protected these platforms so long as they declared upfront what opinions were acceptable in advance and banned for certain content without prejudice, and did not attempt to curate or otherwise act as a publisher, approving only certain content fit for public consumption while shutting out dissenting yet lawful discussion. It would be outright discriminatory to deny service on such platforms due to their reach and lack of suitable alternatives based on political stance, race, or creed, but places like Twitter have made it clear conservatives are to not offend the other side or they will find any excuse to hide their posts, get them banned, or the case of President Trump, outright censor his posts or declare him a liar and link to his political opposition just to make it clear they want to be publishers of propaganda, not neutral content carriers who allow all speech so long as it is lawful as their terms of service used to defend for the longest time until it became politically and socially inconvenient to certain parties.
The DOJ now wants to punish such blatant prejudice and wants carriers who want to act like publishers to assume legal responsibility publishers would face, which means they sacrifice immunity from responsibility Section 230 formerly granted them.
Now, this is basically saying "any social forum that lets criminal speech fester while punishing lawful speech should be punished in turn"
Generally, I find this sensible enough. Twitter has been notorious for allowing tons of BLM/ANTIFA types to openly encourage rioting, looting, and otherwise incite all types of criminal activity while trying to punish people for posting information that gives the lie to their claims of white supremacists being guilty of the crimes they committed by shadowbanning it or censoring accounts that dare not support the groups I just mentioned.
Even someone having an opinion like "I hope the military is called out to fill the rioters full of lead to restore order" is a perfectly lawful statement. It's an opinion that the state should mobilize its forces to put down domestic insurrection with the force of arms, positions defended all the way by George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion and which Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln emulated in later federal administrations.
Unlawful speech would be saying X places need to be burned down and their contents stolen from their lawful owners.
However, Twitter has punished the former opinion but let the latter fester, even though the latter is a clear case of unlawful speech under federal statute.
This is where any public-facing forum should cringe. Lack of transparency is a definite problem, but this is using a shotgun to swat a fly, as while it would combat places like Twitter or Facebook openly favoring certain political stances while punishing expressions of others through deceptive and biased abuse of their own terms of service in a discriminatory manner, this would mean any public forum would be at risk of having their owners made completely liable for the content of their individual posters unless the forum was an invite-only closed garden with no public-facing component.
This is something even a basic tightening of enforcement would spell the death of many types of forums and social networks unless they provided constant transparency on all their inner workings, otherwise, this puts them under threat of being accused of being publishers and not merely neutral content carriers.
While I agree Twitter and Facebook need to be more transparent, this can and will affect all public fora, and that has some frightening implications for any forum that has publicly viewable content.
This basically says the federal government cannot be hamstrung by Section 230 if they deem fit. Generally sensible on the face of it, but the scope of this is very vague and outside of something like them imposing censorship of unlawful topics by their own initiative using civil enforcement methods, this concerns me as a stepping stone to a full-on censorship bureau of differing opinions unless this is given meticulous elaboration as to it's scope, effects, and limitations as a supplement to criminal prosecution.
This is basically saying the big names in social media and forums cannot stifle competition while hiding behind Section 230 to claim neutrality so long as they work to muscle out competition.
This isn't too objectionable really, but the scope is left rather disturbingly open-ended on this topic.
Some of these topics are covered in more detail here:
https://www.justice.gov/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Specifically, the following parts:
Section 1B is the scary one. The first two topics are unobjectionable, but how does one define cyberstalking exactly? Is it merely gaining access to information that is not publically available like medical records and financial stuff like credit card numbers and posting it so as to facilitate harm to someone, or can someone get busted for reposting public Facebook profiles and addresses/phone numbers gleaned from Whitepages.com?
The preventing of posting financials and medical records I'm down with, but the latter, while a dick move, is not and should not be criminal unless it is done with the clear intention to facilitate a crime like assault or murder. Otherwise, it's printing out the phonebook and posting it on a forum, and if we are going to make that criminal, phone companies are accessories to some heinous offenses.
My own records are available via public gleanings with a modest amount of effort. I've been doxed before, nothing that was exposed by it is something anyone could get by breaking laws, it was easily publicly sourced. The people who did it were doing so as part of a campaign to facilitate my getting upset and insult me, but that's not a crime. None of the information has been used to threaten my life or those related to me, so no crime was committed. Sure, I had some fools try to post that garbage to raise a personal army against me by manchildren with a grudge, but the threats were nothing more than internet edgelord crap any judge would laugh out of a courtroom under current law.
If they posted my bank account information, then that would be a crime, but that hasn't happened and my address and phone number do not constitute a criminal offense absent proven threats to harm my life and safety alongside that information with clear intent to act on that desire.
Basically, that cyberstalking part has the potential for chilling some nasty yet completely legal speech, and even if I admit it would please me to no end to see certain people who did such to me hamstrung with legal consequences, I'm not spiteful to want it to happen because it's a slippery slope that scares me with the implications long-term.
Here is the other important section:
So if I think illegal aliens (and I do) should be deported, that is not an unlawful opinion and no one should silence me for saying so. If I argued vigilantes should take the work of ICE into their own hands, then that would be illegal and not lawful for me to post because I would be encouraging a disruption of lawful authority by inciting others towards acting outside the law.
4a would protect the former and punish the latter, which is fair enough to me.
4b is also fine for the most part, but the definition of good faith needs some very well detailed fine print or we'd be no better off than we started and just shifting goalposts.
4c. Is just saying "if the speech is something no one is allowed to say, and all are penalized equally with clear reasoning, let it ride."
For example, let's say a forum has a hard "no-politics" rule outside one clearly designated area. Any politics outside that area is removed with prejudice, no matter the slant or bias.
That's pretty reasonable, so long as such is not implemented ex post facto or rules are changed without due notice or reverted on a whim to bother by the book.
Now, in conclusion, this is just suggestions by the DOD, none of this is actual law yet to my knowledge, but it's clear many politicians on both sides of the aisle are considering such changes, and while I'm not entirely opposed to some reforms, I have grave reservations as noted above how this could become a slippery slope we'll all regret later unless handled with the greatest care and respect for lawful expression.
Now, despite how cruelly I was lied about and abused there, what was done to me does not approach libel as far as I'm concerned, at least nothing I'd bother a courtroom over. I have the truth on my side, none of my accusers will ever dare back up with they say without the shield of an internet username, and given how the political winds are blowing, I predict the Farms will be shuttering its doors in a few months anyway, so let them take my public activity out of context and spread all sorts of garbage with maybe a tiny grain of truth and over 99.99% insulting invective. I'm a big boy, I can handle that.
Regardless, I bring that up because while I find the idea of anything they say being used against me as retarded, the recommendation the DOJ is proposing would be the death knell of a site like the Farms. If even a casual implementation of those reforms goes through, Null might as well shut down things ASAP before he's up to eyeballs in legal issues. Now, I actually am not pleased with this. Being able to talk shit about people and their public activities should be perfectly legal, even if that discussion is insulting and filled with falsehoods, distortions, and more cherrypicking than an orchard, and I still defend the right of those who have done so to me to keep going, even if I'm of the opinion they can take a long walk off a short pier and I wouldn't weep for them.
However, here's what the DOJ is proposing and why it would be suicide for any social media site or forum to allow such unfettered speech if they implement this in the most casual manner possible.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-issues-recommendations-section-230-reform
(original in italics, my comments in bold, emphasized original text in bolded italics. I am a layman, so I want it known upfront I have no legal training, this is just my understanding of how it reads based on my layman perspective of law from a US based perspective.)
Justice Department Issues Recommendations for Section 230 Reform
Reforms Strike Balance of Protecting Citizens While Preserving Online Innovation and Free Speech
Reforms Strike Balance of Protecting Citizens While Preserving Online Innovation and Free Speech
The Department of Justice released today a set of reform proposals to update the outdated immunity for online platforms under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Responding to bipartisan concerns about the scope of 230 immunity, the department identified a set of concrete reform proposals to provide stronger incentives for online platforms to address illicit material on their services while continuing to foster innovation and free speech. The department’s findings are available here.
“When it comes to issues of public safety, the government is the one who must act on behalf of society at large. Law enforcement cannot delegate our obligations to protect the safety of the American people purely to the judgment of profit-seeking private firms. We must shape the incentives for companies to create a safer environment, which is what Section 230 was originally intended to do,” said Attorney General William P. Barr. “Taken together, these reforms will ensure that Section 230 immunity incentivizes online platforms to be responsible actors. These reforms are targeted at platforms to make certain they are appropriately addressing illegal and exploitive content while continuing to preserve a vibrant, open, and competitive internet. These twin objectives of giving online platforms the freedom to grow and innovate while encouraging them to moderate content responsibly were the core objectives of Section 230 at the outset. The Department’s proposal aims to realize these objectives more fully and clearly in order for Section 230 to better serve the interests of the American people.”
So far, so good in overview. This means, in simple English, they want online fora like forums, microblogs like Twitter, and places like Facebook to continue to block speech that is obviously in violation of federal law like that inciting crime while still encouraging lawful public expression.
On the face of it, I can concur with the overall sentiment expressed thus far.
The department's review of Section 230 over the last ten months arose in the context of its broader review of market-leading online platforms and their practices, which were announced in July 2019. The department held a large public workshop and expert roundtable in February 2020, as well as dozens of listening sessions with industry, thought leaders, and policy makers, to gain a better understanding of the uses and problems surrounding Section 230.
Section 230 was originally enacted to protect developing technology by providing that online platforms were not liable for the third-party content on their services or for their removal of such content in certain circumstances. This immunity was meant to nurture emerging internet businesses and to overrule a judicial precedent that rendered online platforms liable for all third-party content on their services if they restricted some harmful content.
However, the combination of 25 years of drastic technological changes and an expansive statutory interpretation left online platforms unaccountable for a variety of harms flowing from content on their platforms and with virtually unfettered discretion to censor third-party content with little transparency or accountability. Following the completion of its review, the Department of Justice determined that Section 230 is ripe for reform and identified and developed four categories of wide-ranging recommendations.
Let's be real here. There has been a naked and unapologetic movement on many major social media platforms and some of the more well-known forums to hew to certain narratives and bend, warp, and twist their terms of service to expel those who have not said anything unlawful, merely something that goes against whatever political or social axe the owners of said platforms wish to grind.
Now, Section 230 protected these platforms so long as they declared upfront what opinions were acceptable in advance and banned for certain content without prejudice, and did not attempt to curate or otherwise act as a publisher, approving only certain content fit for public consumption while shutting out dissenting yet lawful discussion. It would be outright discriminatory to deny service on such platforms due to their reach and lack of suitable alternatives based on political stance, race, or creed, but places like Twitter have made it clear conservatives are to not offend the other side or they will find any excuse to hide their posts, get them banned, or the case of President Trump, outright censor his posts or declare him a liar and link to his political opposition just to make it clear they want to be publishers of propaganda, not neutral content carriers who allow all speech so long as it is lawful as their terms of service used to defend for the longest time until it became politically and socially inconvenient to certain parties.
The DOJ now wants to punish such blatant prejudice and wants carriers who want to act like publishers to assume legal responsibility publishers would face, which means they sacrifice immunity from responsibility Section 230 formerly granted them.
Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content
The first category of recommendations is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation claims. These reforms include a carve-out for bad actors who purposefully facilitate or solicit content that violates federal criminal law or are willfully blind to criminal content on their own services. Additionally, the department recommends a case-specific carve out where a platform has actual knowledge that content violated federal criminal law and does not act on it within a reasonable time, or where a platform was provided with a court judgment that the content is unlawful, and does not take appropriate action.
Now, this is basically saying "any social forum that lets criminal speech fester while punishing lawful speech should be punished in turn"
Generally, I find this sensible enough. Twitter has been notorious for allowing tons of BLM/ANTIFA types to openly encourage rioting, looting, and otherwise incite all types of criminal activity while trying to punish people for posting information that gives the lie to their claims of white supremacists being guilty of the crimes they committed by shadowbanning it or censoring accounts that dare not support the groups I just mentioned.
Even someone having an opinion like "I hope the military is called out to fill the rioters full of lead to restore order" is a perfectly lawful statement. It's an opinion that the state should mobilize its forces to put down domestic insurrection with the force of arms, positions defended all the way by George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion and which Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln emulated in later federal administrations.
Unlawful speech would be saying X places need to be burned down and their contents stolen from their lawful owners.
However, Twitter has punished the former opinion but let the latter fester, even though the latter is a clear case of unlawful speech under federal statute.
Promoting Open Discourse and Greater Transparency
A second category of proposed reforms is intended to clarify the text and revive the original purpose of the statute in order to promote free and open discourse online and encourage greater transparency between platforms and users. One of these recommended reforms is to provide a statutory definition of “good faith” to clarify its original purpose. The new statutory definition would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and consistent with public representations. These measures would encourage platforms to be more transparent and accountable to their users.
This is where any public-facing forum should cringe. Lack of transparency is a definite problem, but this is using a shotgun to swat a fly, as while it would combat places like Twitter or Facebook openly favoring certain political stances while punishing expressions of others through deceptive and biased abuse of their own terms of service in a discriminatory manner, this would mean any public forum would be at risk of having their owners made completely liable for the content of their individual posters unless the forum was an invite-only closed garden with no public-facing component.
This is something even a basic tightening of enforcement would spell the death of many types of forums and social networks unless they provided constant transparency on all their inner workings, otherwise, this puts them under threat of being accused of being publishers and not merely neutral content carriers.
While I agree Twitter and Facebook need to be more transparent, this can and will affect all public fora, and that has some frightening implications for any forum that has publicly viewable content.
Clarifying Federal Government Enforcement Capabilities
The third category of recommendations would increase the ability of the government to protect citizens from unlawful conduct, by making it clear that Section 230 does not apply to civil enforcement actions brought by the federal government.
This basically says the federal government cannot be hamstrung by Section 230 if they deem fit. Generally sensible on the face of it, but the scope of this is very vague and outside of something like them imposing censorship of unlawful topics by their own initiative using civil enforcement methods, this concerns me as a stepping stone to a full-on censorship bureau of differing opinions unless this is given meticulous elaboration as to it's scope, effects, and limitations as a supplement to criminal prosecution.
Promoting Competition
A fourth category of reform is to make clear that federal antitrust claims are not, and were never intended to be, covered by Section 230 immunity. Over time, the avenues for engaging in both online commerce and speech have concentrated in the hands of a few key players. It makes little sense to enable large online platforms (particularly dominant ones) to invoke Section 230 immunity in antitrust cases, where liability is based on harm to competition, not on third-party speech.
This is basically saying the big names in social media and forums cannot stifle competition while hiding behind Section 230 to claim neutrality so long as they work to muscle out competition.
This isn't too objectionable really, but the scope is left rather disturbingly open-ended on this topic.
Some of these topics are covered in more detail here:
https://www.justice.gov/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
Specifically, the following parts:
1. Incentivizing Online Platforms to Address Illicit Content
The first category of potential reforms is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation.
The first category of potential reforms is aimed at incentivizing platforms to address the growing amount of illicit content online, while preserving the core of Section 230’s immunity for defamation.
a. Bad Samaritan Carve-Out. First, the Department proposes denying Section 230 immunity to truly bad actors. The title of Section 230’s immunity provision—“Protection for ‘Good Samaritan’ Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material”—makes clear that Section 230 immunity is meant to incentivize and protect responsible online platforms. It therefore makes little sense to immunize from civil liability an online platform that purposefully facilitates or solicits third-party content or activity that would violate federal criminal law.
b. Carve-Outs for Child Abuse, Terrorism, and Cyber-Stalking. Second, the Department proposes exempting from immunity specific categories of claims that address particularly egregious content, including (1) child exploitation and sexual abuse, (2) terrorism, and (3) cyber-stalking. These targeted carve-outs would halt the over-expansion of Section 230 immunity and enable victims to seek civil redress in causes of action far afield from the original purpose of the statute.
c. Case-Specific Carve-outs for Actual Knowledge or Court Judgments. Third, the Department supports reforms to make clear that Section 230 immunity does not apply in a specific case where a platform had actual knowledge or notice that the third party content at issue violated federal criminal law or where the platform was provided with a court judgment that content is unlawful in any respect.
Section 1B is the scary one. The first two topics are unobjectionable, but how does one define cyberstalking exactly? Is it merely gaining access to information that is not publically available like medical records and financial stuff like credit card numbers and posting it so as to facilitate harm to someone, or can someone get busted for reposting public Facebook profiles and addresses/phone numbers gleaned from Whitepages.com?
The preventing of posting financials and medical records I'm down with, but the latter, while a dick move, is not and should not be criminal unless it is done with the clear intention to facilitate a crime like assault or murder. Otherwise, it's printing out the phonebook and posting it on a forum, and if we are going to make that criminal, phone companies are accessories to some heinous offenses.
My own records are available via public gleanings with a modest amount of effort. I've been doxed before, nothing that was exposed by it is something anyone could get by breaking laws, it was easily publicly sourced. The people who did it were doing so as part of a campaign to facilitate my getting upset and insult me, but that's not a crime. None of the information has been used to threaten my life or those related to me, so no crime was committed. Sure, I had some fools try to post that garbage to raise a personal army against me by manchildren with a grudge, but the threats were nothing more than internet edgelord crap any judge would laugh out of a courtroom under current law.
If they posted my bank account information, then that would be a crime, but that hasn't happened and my address and phone number do not constitute a criminal offense absent proven threats to harm my life and safety alongside that information with clear intent to act on that desire.
Basically, that cyberstalking part has the potential for chilling some nasty yet completely legal speech, and even if I admit it would please me to no end to see certain people who did such to me hamstrung with legal consequences, I'm not spiteful to want it to happen because it's a slippery slope that scares me with the implications long-term.
Here is the other important section:
4. Promoting Open Discourse and Greater Transparency
A fourth category of potential reforms is intended to clarify the text and original purpose of the statute in order to promote free and open discourse online and encourage greater transparency between platforms and users.
A fourth category of potential reforms is intended to clarify the text and original purpose of the statute in order to promote free and open discourse online and encourage greater transparency between platforms and users.
a. Replace Vague Terminology in (c)(2). First, the Department supports replacing the vague catch-all “otherwise objectionable” language in Section 230(c)(2) with “unlawful” and “promotes terrorism.” This reform would focus the broad blanket immunity for content moderation decisions on the core objective of Section 230—to reduce online content harmful to children—while limiting a platform's ability to remove content arbitrarily or in ways inconsistent with its terms or service simply by deeming it “objectionable.”
b. Provide Definition of Good Faith. Second, the Department proposes adding a statutory definition of “good faith,” which would limit immunity for content moderation decisions to those done in accordance with plain and particular terms of service and accompanied by a reasonable explanation, unless such notice would impede law enforcement or risk imminent harm to others. Clarifying the meaning of "good faith" should encourage platforms to be more transparent and accountable to their users, rather than hide behind blanket Section 230 protections.
c. Explicitly Overrule Stratton Oakmont to Avoid Moderator’s Dilemma. Third, the Department proposes clarifying that a platform’s removal of content pursuant to Section 230(c)(2) or consistent with its terms of service does not, on its own, render the platform a publisher or speaker for all other content on its service.
4a is generally fine. Basically, if it's not against actual law, it should remain up. So if I think illegal aliens (and I do) should be deported, that is not an unlawful opinion and no one should silence me for saying so. If I argued vigilantes should take the work of ICE into their own hands, then that would be illegal and not lawful for me to post because I would be encouraging a disruption of lawful authority by inciting others towards acting outside the law.
4a would protect the former and punish the latter, which is fair enough to me.
4b is also fine for the most part, but the definition of good faith needs some very well detailed fine print or we'd be no better off than we started and just shifting goalposts.
4c. Is just saying "if the speech is something no one is allowed to say, and all are penalized equally with clear reasoning, let it ride."
For example, let's say a forum has a hard "no-politics" rule outside one clearly designated area. Any politics outside that area is removed with prejudice, no matter the slant or bias.
That's pretty reasonable, so long as such is not implemented ex post facto or rules are changed without due notice or reverted on a whim to bother by the book.
Now, in conclusion, this is just suggestions by the DOD, none of this is actual law yet to my knowledge, but it's clear many politicians on both sides of the aisle are considering such changes, and while I'm not entirely opposed to some reforms, I have grave reservations as noted above how this could become a slippery slope we'll all regret later unless handled with the greatest care and respect for lawful expression.
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
Having Left The Kiwi Farms: Addendum
Since I decided to leave there for good, I want to tie up a few loose ends here and now that my last post did not address.
1. Just because I left in disgust over how shabbily I was regarded by gutter trash who made it clear they would continue to harass me with no provocation, that does not mean I'm suddenly going to switch sides and join the legions of angry morons trying to take the place down, nor am I going to be a bitter ex-member who curses it as evil incarnate since I was spurned (or rather self-expelled) from paradise.
Hopefully, this just means I can close the book on this part of my life. I know nothing about the place, so I'm not in possession on any dirt about anyone there, I'm not going to start a crusade against them, mostly because I've been trying to get away from drama, cutting myself off from there can only help in that regard, and while there are some people there I have had the intense displeasure of crossing paths with, I just want to ignore them from now on. Despite a few of those cowards sending me insulting crap via anon accounts to troll me here (in direct violation of their own rules on not starting things offsite, but they went anon so I can't pin down who if I wanted to), it goes in one ear and out the other, as they are welcome to their pit, I'm just not jumping down in to join them anymore and refusing any invitation to return.
2. In total fairness, while I spent most of my time commenting on threads as opposed to doxing or going out of my way to antagonize people, I was a member there, and thus by definition, I share some guilt in contributing to it by my passive participation. I don't deny it, would be a fool to claim otherwise, but it ends now and forever. I'm going to accept responsibility for every post I made there, no matter what, anything to tie to the GethN7 account or my former account Cynical (which I used prior to my current one) is all mine, insofar as the original words were not edited by anyone else without my knowledge. Just making it clear I fully own up to anything posted as stated, just in case anyone wants to call me on it later.
3. If you were not someone who treated me like dirt, I can be reached at multiple venues should you wish to continue our association. Otherwise, if you were someone who treated me with contempt, just stay away from me, we have nothing to discuss unless you want to apologize for your actions.
1. Just because I left in disgust over how shabbily I was regarded by gutter trash who made it clear they would continue to harass me with no provocation, that does not mean I'm suddenly going to switch sides and join the legions of angry morons trying to take the place down, nor am I going to be a bitter ex-member who curses it as evil incarnate since I was spurned (or rather self-expelled) from paradise.
Hopefully, this just means I can close the book on this part of my life. I know nothing about the place, so I'm not in possession on any dirt about anyone there, I'm not going to start a crusade against them, mostly because I've been trying to get away from drama, cutting myself off from there can only help in that regard, and while there are some people there I have had the intense displeasure of crossing paths with, I just want to ignore them from now on. Despite a few of those cowards sending me insulting crap via anon accounts to troll me here (in direct violation of their own rules on not starting things offsite, but they went anon so I can't pin down who if I wanted to), it goes in one ear and out the other, as they are welcome to their pit, I'm just not jumping down in to join them anymore and refusing any invitation to return.
2. In total fairness, while I spent most of my time commenting on threads as opposed to doxing or going out of my way to antagonize people, I was a member there, and thus by definition, I share some guilt in contributing to it by my passive participation. I don't deny it, would be a fool to claim otherwise, but it ends now and forever. I'm going to accept responsibility for every post I made there, no matter what, anything to tie to the GethN7 account or my former account Cynical (which I used prior to my current one) is all mine, insofar as the original words were not edited by anyone else without my knowledge. Just making it clear I fully own up to anything posted as stated, just in case anyone wants to call me on it later.
3. If you were not someone who treated me like dirt, I can be reached at multiple venues should you wish to continue our association. Otherwise, if you were someone who treated me with contempt, just stay away from me, we have nothing to discuss unless you want to apologize for your actions.
Tuesday, June 16, 2020
Farewell to Kiwi Farms for good this time
I've made a post or two here before about having left there for awhile, but this time I have crossed the Rubicon and requested a permaban. I've already deleted my passwords and whether the permaban is granted or not, I don't care, I'm leaving and not returning this time.
Thing is, I don't hate the guy who runs the place, or at least he's not the focus of my anger. My anger is directed at the people there who harassed, hazed, defamed, doxed, and otherwise made my life there a living hell. Yes, I'm well aware "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", so I'm taking that advice and getting out.
I thought I could handle it for the longest time. I really did, and looking back, it wasn't so bad for awhile. However, as the site changed, as people came and went, and as cliques formed and prejudices hardened, certain people became the "cool kids", and the rest were bleeding meat for the dogs to savage. That was me as the latter.
I don't hide things by nature. It doesn't come easily to me, hence why I used the same username everywhere and even write under my real name on ChristCenteredGamer. I have absolutely nothing to hide in a legal sense, I admit I don't have the most moral past (read the earlier entries on this blog if you want a good sample of that), and I'm probably not half as decent a human being as I want to be regarded as.
At the same time, I have standards. I am not cruel enough to viciously distort the truth about something to troll them, at least I'm not very good at it because I like whatever I give someone grief over to be based on some measure of fact I could take into a court of law and argue with a decent chance of success. Outright lying about people is not my forte either, I'm not all that great at that and am too morally repulsed by doing so to properly learn how. Being vicious for the sake of riling people is also not my specialty, and I'd rather be shot than grow comfortable with such a vile act.
In short, I'm a "moralfag". I'm a wimp. I'm too much of bleeding heart to put up with that crap. I admit without shame it was probably the worst mistake of my life to get the slightest bit involved with the Kiwi Farms, but what's done is done, and if asked if I was a member, I will tell the truth, as much as I might live to regret it.
Thanks to being a member there, I have been subjected to far more crap than I ever expected to put up with, had some petty former moderator named "zedkissed60" there dox me and my family out of sheer spite, had my every action cast into the worst possible light and people who will never have the spine and guts to ever speak to me face to face call me a horrible human being based on little more than a distorted version of my actual actions and their own preconceptions.
And I refuse to deal with it for another second. I'd rather leave on my own terms and be banned on my own request (and if the latter isn't honored it makes no difference), but at the very least I left because I chose to. The site in question is a sinking ship that I doubt will last till the end of this year as the owner has admitted they want to start a family and move onto other things, and I wish Joshua "Null" Moon the best with that, I cannot hate a man who has shown me far more regard than I probably deserve, but I cannot stomach the company he keeps. And while there are many people there who deserve my respect and honor, there are some who would kick me while I down and live stream it on Facebook so the world could laugh at my pain, and those people I refuse to put up with for another second.
This all said, my past, insofar as I have revealed it and public records can be mined for information, is an open book. I cannot control what conclusions people infer from what they find, and I'm not going to try with those who assume the worst just to be vicious to me.
As for the facts, I have committed no crimes, I have confessed to nothing on the internet I would be ashamed to explain to my friends and family, and if the Kiwi Farms wants to do something as utterly spiteful as making a "lolcow" thread on me, well, so be it, I'm in the public eye as a journalist now, not like I didn't expect this might happen, but that thread will have to exist without my input, and I'm not defending my good name to those who've already decided I must be scum because to assume such is funnier in their eyes. Besides, my name is "Daniel", Hebrew for "God is my Judge", and that's the only one I fear, not the opinion of men.
That said, for the decent people there who know what I really am and always treated me with respect, you know where to find me elsewhere. As to those who have wished me nothing but contempt, you can quit hazing me on the Farms. You can quit leaving me comments on this blog (which is moderated) to troll. You can crow about your victory over me leaving your fetid hovel as much as you like, your scorn is my glory.
That said, I have no intention to join any successor to the Kiwi Farms. I don't deny being a member of the Farms, but I disavow anything to do with it's more vile nature and want nothing more to do with it in any form. They spat on every other community for being vile pits of perdition, and since I despise hypocrisy, I now do the same to them.
I will not harass it's members. I will not dox anyone from there. I will not nurse stupid grudges like has been done to me, and I would hope and pray they have the maturity to leave me in peace if I leave them in peace. If they cannot do so or are unwilling to do so, then all I can do is what Jesus did as he was crucified and Stephen did as he was stoned and leave this in God's hands.
From now on, I hope what time has been freed from no longer associating with the Farms can be spent towards other things, and while I will not pretend this chapter in my life never happened, it deserves no glory as far as I'm concerned either.
Thing is, I don't hate the guy who runs the place, or at least he's not the focus of my anger. My anger is directed at the people there who harassed, hazed, defamed, doxed, and otherwise made my life there a living hell. Yes, I'm well aware "if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen", so I'm taking that advice and getting out.
I thought I could handle it for the longest time. I really did, and looking back, it wasn't so bad for awhile. However, as the site changed, as people came and went, and as cliques formed and prejudices hardened, certain people became the "cool kids", and the rest were bleeding meat for the dogs to savage. That was me as the latter.
I don't hide things by nature. It doesn't come easily to me, hence why I used the same username everywhere and even write under my real name on ChristCenteredGamer. I have absolutely nothing to hide in a legal sense, I admit I don't have the most moral past (read the earlier entries on this blog if you want a good sample of that), and I'm probably not half as decent a human being as I want to be regarded as.
At the same time, I have standards. I am not cruel enough to viciously distort the truth about something to troll them, at least I'm not very good at it because I like whatever I give someone grief over to be based on some measure of fact I could take into a court of law and argue with a decent chance of success. Outright lying about people is not my forte either, I'm not all that great at that and am too morally repulsed by doing so to properly learn how. Being vicious for the sake of riling people is also not my specialty, and I'd rather be shot than grow comfortable with such a vile act.
In short, I'm a "moralfag". I'm a wimp. I'm too much of bleeding heart to put up with that crap. I admit without shame it was probably the worst mistake of my life to get the slightest bit involved with the Kiwi Farms, but what's done is done, and if asked if I was a member, I will tell the truth, as much as I might live to regret it.
Thanks to being a member there, I have been subjected to far more crap than I ever expected to put up with, had some petty former moderator named "zedkissed60" there dox me and my family out of sheer spite, had my every action cast into the worst possible light and people who will never have the spine and guts to ever speak to me face to face call me a horrible human being based on little more than a distorted version of my actual actions and their own preconceptions.
And I refuse to deal with it for another second. I'd rather leave on my own terms and be banned on my own request (and if the latter isn't honored it makes no difference), but at the very least I left because I chose to. The site in question is a sinking ship that I doubt will last till the end of this year as the owner has admitted they want to start a family and move onto other things, and I wish Joshua "Null" Moon the best with that, I cannot hate a man who has shown me far more regard than I probably deserve, but I cannot stomach the company he keeps. And while there are many people there who deserve my respect and honor, there are some who would kick me while I down and live stream it on Facebook so the world could laugh at my pain, and those people I refuse to put up with for another second.
This all said, my past, insofar as I have revealed it and public records can be mined for information, is an open book. I cannot control what conclusions people infer from what they find, and I'm not going to try with those who assume the worst just to be vicious to me.
As for the facts, I have committed no crimes, I have confessed to nothing on the internet I would be ashamed to explain to my friends and family, and if the Kiwi Farms wants to do something as utterly spiteful as making a "lolcow" thread on me, well, so be it, I'm in the public eye as a journalist now, not like I didn't expect this might happen, but that thread will have to exist without my input, and I'm not defending my good name to those who've already decided I must be scum because to assume such is funnier in their eyes. Besides, my name is "Daniel", Hebrew for "God is my Judge", and that's the only one I fear, not the opinion of men.
That said, for the decent people there who know what I really am and always treated me with respect, you know where to find me elsewhere. As to those who have wished me nothing but contempt, you can quit hazing me on the Farms. You can quit leaving me comments on this blog (which is moderated) to troll. You can crow about your victory over me leaving your fetid hovel as much as you like, your scorn is my glory.
That said, I have no intention to join any successor to the Kiwi Farms. I don't deny being a member of the Farms, but I disavow anything to do with it's more vile nature and want nothing more to do with it in any form. They spat on every other community for being vile pits of perdition, and since I despise hypocrisy, I now do the same to them.
I will not harass it's members. I will not dox anyone from there. I will not nurse stupid grudges like has been done to me, and I would hope and pray they have the maturity to leave me in peace if I leave them in peace. If they cannot do so or are unwilling to do so, then all I can do is what Jesus did as he was crucified and Stephen did as he was stoned and leave this in God's hands.
From now on, I hope what time has been freed from no longer associating with the Farms can be spent towards other things, and while I will not pretend this chapter in my life never happened, it deserves no glory as far as I'm concerned either.
The American Revolutionary War: Or When Both Sides Did Some Dumb Things
One of my loves is reading history, and I've been binging on history books for quite a while now. While doing so, I've been rereading a few books on the American Revolution, and to be honest, both sides did some really dumb things, and since some of them are kinda hilarious, I thought I'd share some of the more galaxy brained things both sides did.
1. The only reason the war started was, quite simply, the British (King George especially) were too arrogant to not kill the golden goose. Up until the end of the Seven Years War, since the turn of the century (meaning from 1700-1763), the British had ruled their American colonies with a pretty light hand, to the point it had become "normal". Afterward, they started clamping down and demanding strict enforcement of tax laws they had otherwise been content to let off easy for several generations as well as dreaming up new ones that could only make their American subjects angrier. Then, they had the temerity to wonder why they were considered the bad guys after all this.
Had they acknowledged any of this, and acted with appropriate finesse, the United States might still be a British possession.
2. The Americans weren't much smarter in some ways. Their attempt to get Canada to rebel and attempt to invade them was a pipe dream at best. Sure, Canada was formerly French, but the British had done a good job of convincing them their new masters were far better than their former ones, and Americans thinking Canadians were gonna switch sides were just too stupid to read the room and blinded by their own bias.
3. The overall British strategy was dense. They thought they had to crush the rebel armies to win. What they needed to do, and failed miserably at doing, was break their spirit. Further, it was going to be easier to break the Britsh than it was the Americans because the longer things dragged out, the more pain it would deal with the British financially and morally, which it did. The American side was far more realistic in realizing all they had to do was outlast the other side.
4. Back to American stupidity, albeit not something they could have known without the benefit of hindsight, was that most of their officers who were ex-British Army in high places like Charles Lee and Horatio Gates were worse than useless. They might have had former military experience, but both were vainglorious, egotistical, and borderline traitors with how they spent more time trying to screw over their boss George Washington than they did showing battlefield competence. Both dropped the ball at several crucial intervals, and both ended their careers in disgrace as a result of this.
5. Turning back to British stupidity, they had this deluded notion that all they had to do was win battles and their loyal subjects would flock to plug any holes in holding these areas. While admittedly not entirely dense in some loyalist intensive places like New York, this idea cost them dearly elsewhere as they had a poor idea of just how many Americans still wanted to be loyal elsewhere. Cornwallis had his forces in the Carolinas nigh obliterated because of this delusion.
There are some other moments of idiocy worth covering, but these I consider some of the dimmest bulbs of an event where both sides were a bit dense, just the American side let fewer neurons spark out than the British in the long run.
1. The only reason the war started was, quite simply, the British (King George especially) were too arrogant to not kill the golden goose. Up until the end of the Seven Years War, since the turn of the century (meaning from 1700-1763), the British had ruled their American colonies with a pretty light hand, to the point it had become "normal". Afterward, they started clamping down and demanding strict enforcement of tax laws they had otherwise been content to let off easy for several generations as well as dreaming up new ones that could only make their American subjects angrier. Then, they had the temerity to wonder why they were considered the bad guys after all this.
Had they acknowledged any of this, and acted with appropriate finesse, the United States might still be a British possession.
2. The Americans weren't much smarter in some ways. Their attempt to get Canada to rebel and attempt to invade them was a pipe dream at best. Sure, Canada was formerly French, but the British had done a good job of convincing them their new masters were far better than their former ones, and Americans thinking Canadians were gonna switch sides were just too stupid to read the room and blinded by their own bias.
3. The overall British strategy was dense. They thought they had to crush the rebel armies to win. What they needed to do, and failed miserably at doing, was break their spirit. Further, it was going to be easier to break the Britsh than it was the Americans because the longer things dragged out, the more pain it would deal with the British financially and morally, which it did. The American side was far more realistic in realizing all they had to do was outlast the other side.
4. Back to American stupidity, albeit not something they could have known without the benefit of hindsight, was that most of their officers who were ex-British Army in high places like Charles Lee and Horatio Gates were worse than useless. They might have had former military experience, but both were vainglorious, egotistical, and borderline traitors with how they spent more time trying to screw over their boss George Washington than they did showing battlefield competence. Both dropped the ball at several crucial intervals, and both ended their careers in disgrace as a result of this.
5. Turning back to British stupidity, they had this deluded notion that all they had to do was win battles and their loyal subjects would flock to plug any holes in holding these areas. While admittedly not entirely dense in some loyalist intensive places like New York, this idea cost them dearly elsewhere as they had a poor idea of just how many Americans still wanted to be loyal elsewhere. Cornwallis had his forces in the Carolinas nigh obliterated because of this delusion.
There are some other moments of idiocy worth covering, but these I consider some of the dimmest bulbs of an event where both sides were a bit dense, just the American side let fewer neurons spark out than the British in the long run.
Sunday, June 14, 2020
A House Divided Cannot Stand: Or When Jesus Was Accused of Being His Own Enemy Because Of "Reasons"
These days, it seems some people, namely those who riot, loot, and commit crimes in places where the police are punished for daring to remind them such acts are illegal, think bad is good and good is bad.
They claim they are justified in doing so because they are angry at being mistreated, but I don't see how rioting, looting and making a mockery of the law fix any of their problems. To date, they have yet to explain how abolishing the rule of law is going to fix society beyond some asinine logic that the police is a cure worse than the disease, so if we get rid of them, then we'll be better off.
When you ask how they can guarantee this, their answer boils down to (assuming they bother to be civil about it) "trust me on this". As we've seen, in areas where they basically got their way like that laughable hippie commune in Seattle Washington they call the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone (or CHAZ), this is clearly not working, given the first person to establish anything resembling order, there is someone who basically went unironic African warlord over a place that literally cannot sustain a basic garden.
Then again, expecting consistent logic is probably too much to ask of a bunch of people who think anarcho-communism really can work when they are still leeching off the benefits of a capitalist society to run their phone and laptops.
It's on that note I'd like to bring up another moment of similar galaxy brain logic the Bible had when a bunch of Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons with the help of the Devil.
Yes, really. Apparently, Jesus was undermining the Devil in tormenting humanity by casting out his minions.
Jesus, like anyone else, facepalmed and explained how stupid that sounds like as follows.
From Mark, Chapter 3, Verse 23-29:
23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
Now, I find this a pretty sensible argument. Abraham Lincoln made a similar argument shortly before the American Civil War referencing this same logic in regards to how the nation could not permanently endure as a half slave and half free.
What prompted Jesus explaining their logic fail was this asinine logic:
30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”
As Jesus explained, this makes no sense. If one casts out evil in the name of evil, how can evil perpetuate itself?
Personally, I don't have a good rebuttal to that, because there isn't one. As applied to the real world, how does ending the rule of law ensure society will be one where no crime is committed? How can one make sure the law is just when someone defies it's very meaning? How can man live in a world where money does not determine one's survival while still using all of thee advantages purchased with it to sustain themselves?
The takeaway is simple: A house divided cannot stand. Evil cannot do good against itself, because that defeats the point. An ideal society where the law is thrown out the window cannot work because laws are what holds a society together. Even Communism has the rule that "to each according to his ability, and to each according to their need", and if this rule is not enforced, communism is not viable.
So next time someone accuses you of doing evil to do good or something just as foolish, remember you were not the first one who encountered such illogic, nor will you be the last, and if Christians and the world at large are to be better than such illogic, we must keep in mind that the house of our morals and laws cannot be divided against itself or we as people and the world at large will fall.
They claim they are justified in doing so because they are angry at being mistreated, but I don't see how rioting, looting and making a mockery of the law fix any of their problems. To date, they have yet to explain how abolishing the rule of law is going to fix society beyond some asinine logic that the police is a cure worse than the disease, so if we get rid of them, then we'll be better off.
When you ask how they can guarantee this, their answer boils down to (assuming they bother to be civil about it) "trust me on this". As we've seen, in areas where they basically got their way like that laughable hippie commune in Seattle Washington they call the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone (or CHAZ), this is clearly not working, given the first person to establish anything resembling order, there is someone who basically went unironic African warlord over a place that literally cannot sustain a basic garden.
Then again, expecting consistent logic is probably too much to ask of a bunch of people who think anarcho-communism really can work when they are still leeching off the benefits of a capitalist society to run their phone and laptops.
It's on that note I'd like to bring up another moment of similar galaxy brain logic the Bible had when a bunch of Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons with the help of the Devil.
Yes, really. Apparently, Jesus was undermining the Devil in tormenting humanity by casting out his minions.
Jesus, like anyone else, facepalmed and explained how stupid that sounds like as follows.
From Mark, Chapter 3, Verse 23-29:
23 So Jesus called them over to him and began to speak to them in parables: “How can Satan drive out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan opposes himself and is divided, he cannot stand; his end has come. 27 In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house without first tying him up. Then he can plunder the strong man’s house. 28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
Now, I find this a pretty sensible argument. Abraham Lincoln made a similar argument shortly before the American Civil War referencing this same logic in regards to how the nation could not permanently endure as a half slave and half free.
What prompted Jesus explaining their logic fail was this asinine logic:
30 He said this because they were saying, “He has an impure spirit.”
As Jesus explained, this makes no sense. If one casts out evil in the name of evil, how can evil perpetuate itself?
Personally, I don't have a good rebuttal to that, because there isn't one. As applied to the real world, how does ending the rule of law ensure society will be one where no crime is committed? How can one make sure the law is just when someone defies it's very meaning? How can man live in a world where money does not determine one's survival while still using all of thee advantages purchased with it to sustain themselves?
The takeaway is simple: A house divided cannot stand. Evil cannot do good against itself, because that defeats the point. An ideal society where the law is thrown out the window cannot work because laws are what holds a society together. Even Communism has the rule that "to each according to his ability, and to each according to their need", and if this rule is not enforced, communism is not viable.
So next time someone accuses you of doing evil to do good or something just as foolish, remember you were not the first one who encountered such illogic, nor will you be the last, and if Christians and the world at large are to be better than such illogic, we must keep in mind that the house of our morals and laws cannot be divided against itself or we as people and the world at large will fall.
Saturday, June 6, 2020
More of my favorite Girls Frontline designs
I'd like to cover some more of favorite character designs from Girls Frontline
1. TEC-9
TEC-9 is based off the infamous semi-automatic associated with crime in the 1990's United States (and can be used in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas), I like how her character design is basically a female version of The Punisher, who is the epitome of edgy 1990's in design himself.
2. P226
The SIG Sauer P226 was a pistol favored by the US Navy Seals as opposed to more standard Beretta M9 used by most of the US forces, at least until it was retired in 2015. Her character model features both a reinforced life vest/sailor skirt and she carries a seal plushie in reference to this. Aside from the fact the model of SIG she carries is not the same as the SEAL variant, I otherwise dig the naval references in her design.
3. Jericho
The Jericho is an Israeli derivative of the CZ-75 pistol, only it has a different barrel and heavier frame. It's still in use by the IWI and is available for export in all steel and polymer finish. Her design reflects her Israeli origins with the Star of David head ribbon and she has a classy "lady of war" style to her uniform, and that walking stick (which she uses apparently for looking classy/emergency club) just tends to lend to her "woman who could kick your ass" look. Cowboy Bebop fans will recognize her gun as the one favored by series protagonist Spike Spiegel.
4. Grizzly MK V
The LAR Grizzly Win Mag MK V is essentially the big brother of the M1911 in terms of the overall design, and while capable of .45 Winchester Magnum, it can use the heavy-duty .50 AE round as well. Her overall character design is basically "1980's cop movie protagonist", which is appropriate, as the gun design was conceived during the same era. The Grizzly part of the name gets more focus with her alternate kid skin, which has her wear cute bear ears. The cop references continue through the same with Kid Grizzly being a fan of donuts.
1. TEC-9
TEC-9 is based off the infamous semi-automatic associated with crime in the 1990's United States (and can be used in Grand Theft Auto San Andreas), I like how her character design is basically a female version of The Punisher, who is the epitome of edgy 1990's in design himself.
2. P226
The SIG Sauer P226 was a pistol favored by the US Navy Seals as opposed to more standard Beretta M9 used by most of the US forces, at least until it was retired in 2015. Her character model features both a reinforced life vest/sailor skirt and she carries a seal plushie in reference to this. Aside from the fact the model of SIG she carries is not the same as the SEAL variant, I otherwise dig the naval references in her design.
3. Jericho
The Jericho is an Israeli derivative of the CZ-75 pistol, only it has a different barrel and heavier frame. It's still in use by the IWI and is available for export in all steel and polymer finish. Her design reflects her Israeli origins with the Star of David head ribbon and she has a classy "lady of war" style to her uniform, and that walking stick (which she uses apparently for looking classy/emergency club) just tends to lend to her "woman who could kick your ass" look. Cowboy Bebop fans will recognize her gun as the one favored by series protagonist Spike Spiegel.
4. Grizzly MK V
The LAR Grizzly Win Mag MK V is essentially the big brother of the M1911 in terms of the overall design, and while capable of .45 Winchester Magnum, it can use the heavy-duty .50 AE round as well. Her overall character design is basically "1980's cop movie protagonist", which is appropriate, as the gun design was conceived during the same era. The Grizzly part of the name gets more focus with her alternate kid skin, which has her wear cute bear ears. The cop references continue through the same with Kid Grizzly being a fan of donuts.
Tuesday, June 2, 2020
While the world burns, here's my concerns
Thankfully, riots are nowhere near my immediate family, though some of my friends and extended family are not so fortunate and I pray God shields them every day. And, even if that is not an immediate problem in my own vicinity, I must admit I still have other worries.
I live with my mother and help take care of a disabled father. While we've been fortunate to have no disruption in his home health care and we are all doing well at the moment, watching people elsewhere turn into riotous animals who believe it's alright to kill, steal, and destroy fills me with anger. However, unless they personally try to attack those I care for, in which case I will defend them via whatever means are at my disposal, their handling I believe is the best fit for the courts and the currently embattled police and auxiliary military forces deployed to assist them, whom I pray are able to suppress this civil unrest.
I also am dismayed that the people who are rioting are doing so while we are still reeling from economic downturns and a plague. Their actions are doing no one any favors and I hope a new wave of disease does not follow on the heels of their lawlessness.
Most of all, I pray for my country in general. Whatever thin pretense of wanting justice for a policeman showing ill regard for a detained criminal that resulted in death either directly or indirectly is now beside the point. What is has become is utter anarchy as those who want an excuse to wreak havoc are making civil disorder mushroom across the United States.
It's in these times, I pray for peace to return and that men may sleep peaceably in their beds, and hopefully Goerge Orwell's words about how that is possible since rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf becoming far less pressing than it does now.
I live with my mother and help take care of a disabled father. While we've been fortunate to have no disruption in his home health care and we are all doing well at the moment, watching people elsewhere turn into riotous animals who believe it's alright to kill, steal, and destroy fills me with anger. However, unless they personally try to attack those I care for, in which case I will defend them via whatever means are at my disposal, their handling I believe is the best fit for the courts and the currently embattled police and auxiliary military forces deployed to assist them, whom I pray are able to suppress this civil unrest.
I also am dismayed that the people who are rioting are doing so while we are still reeling from economic downturns and a plague. Their actions are doing no one any favors and I hope a new wave of disease does not follow on the heels of their lawlessness.
Most of all, I pray for my country in general. Whatever thin pretense of wanting justice for a policeman showing ill regard for a detained criminal that resulted in death either directly or indirectly is now beside the point. What is has become is utter anarchy as those who want an excuse to wreak havoc are making civil disorder mushroom across the United States.
It's in these times, I pray for peace to return and that men may sleep peaceably in their beds, and hopefully Goerge Orwell's words about how that is possible since rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf becoming far less pressing than it does now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)