Anonymous Outing KKK Members (1 Viewer)

[General Malaise]

So, when is this supposed to happen?

Sometime today...

Meatwad sure is quiet.

 

[xulf]

Found this photo-journal pretty interesting. Some pretty sorry looking people in the Klan. No wonder they wear hoods.

Interesting pics. As a note, the little girl in the crocs has her shoes on the wrong feet.

 

[Henry Ford]

Found this photo-journal pretty interesting. Some pretty sorry looking people in the Klan. No wonder they wear hoods.

Interesting pics. As a note, the little girl in the crocs has her shoes on the wrong feet.

Yes, that's also what I found shocking.

 

[Dickies]

Found this photo-journal pretty interesting. Some pretty sorry looking people in the Klan. No wonder they wear hoods.

Third picture down looks like Walter from Lebowski.

 

[Epic Problem]

Found this photo-journal pretty interesting. Some pretty sorry looking people in the Klan. No wonder they wear hoods.

Third picture down looks like Walter from Lebowski.

It looks nothing like him. It looks like Big Dan from O Brother

 

[General Malaise]

Found this photo-journal pretty interesting. Some pretty sorry looking people in the Klan. No wonder they wear hoods.

Interesting pics. As a note, the little girl in the crocs has her shoes on the wrong feet.

Also enjoyed Dora the Mexican Explorer being admitted into the Klan's family.

 

[General Malaise]

They sure do drink a lot of soda. Don't they know how bad that is for them?

 

[Cold Dead Hands]

A lot of A-1 dental work in those pictures.

 

[Tom Servo]

Isn't today Guy Fawkes day?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Breitbart reporting that Obama is on the list.

 

[The Commish]

Good god TGunz

His concern isn't about the KKK members...it's about the innocent people. You have to work hard to be this obtuse....real hard.

Pretty sure we learned in the Obamacare thread that tGunZ doesn't care when regular people get hurt, as long as he gets what he wants.

The fact that you think the overall net result of the ACA is "regular people getting hurt" speaks volumes about not only how slanted your worldview is, but how biased the news sources are that you follow.

I love this shtick but it can be dangerous for those that don't know TGunz.

 

[NCCommish]

Isn't today Guy Fawkes day?

Yes

 

[Clifford]

Interesting how upset several posters are that some KKK members are being outed.

Several? I think it really is just Meatwad. Others might be voicing concern over the veracity of the unhooding, in that it might be wrongly identifying KKK members. But tomorrow should be interesting.

There's also some serious concern about the act of doxing in general, and loss of the right of anonymous free speech in this country. Which is extremely problematic.

Yep

Unless you literally never write anything down, you have zero anonymity. Anything you do in electronic format you should consider public information.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

A lot of A-1 dental work in those pictures.

Wearing a hood all the time prevents oxygen from getting to the teeth. Day 1 dental school stuff...

 

[elbowrm]

The pic of the guy shooting the roach is gold.

 

[The Commish]

When are we going to start protesting the US Flag....it pops up in most of these pics

ETA: Or sheets in general for that matter.

 

[SacramentoBob]

It's like their houses are full of Spaceballs paraphernalia, but for the KKK.

 

[roadkill1292]

The pic of the guy shooting the roach is gold.

That was pretty wonderful in a totally American kinda way.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Maybe some of them thought they were joining the Kit Kat Klub. It's an honest mistake and who doesn't love Kit Kats?

I wrote out a ten-page response to this, but then I deleted it because it's just not worth it. If you really think Kit Kats are that tasty, probably nothing anyone says here is going to change your mind.

I enjoy Kit Kats - not my number 1 by any stretch, but I don't mind when someone gives me a break and breaks me off a piece of that kit kat bar.

 

[Sand]

Interesting how upset several posters are that some KKK members are being outed.

Several? I think it really is just Meatwad. Others might be voicing concern over the veracity of the unhooding, in that it might be wrongly identifying KKK members. But tomorrow should be interesting.

Yup- who the hell cares if an actual KKK member is outed? But it dang well would suck to be outed as a member of the KKK when you are not. That wrong info gets out and it sticks- pretty much doesn't matter how much it is debunked.

When these things come up my mind immediately tracks back to Richard Jewell. Words really can't express the hell that guy went through after wrongly being named a subject.

And while I would normally issue congratulations on the successful fishing trip, this is TGunz we're talking about, so I'm sure he's serious.

 

[trogg78]

When are we going to start protesting the US Flag....it pops up in most of these pics

ETA: Or sheets in general for that matter.

Were they breathing oxygen too?!

 

[Dickies]

I thought today was the day?

 

[Henry Ford]

I thought today was the day?

It's out.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I thought today was the day?

It's out.

That's what she said.

 

[Niles Standish]

I never trust the vigilante justice that comes out of this kind of stuff.

 

[The Commish]

When are we going to start protesting the US Flag....it pops up in most of these pics

ETA: Or sheets in general for that matter.

Were they breathing oxygen too?!

allegedly

 

[SacramentoBob]

Looking at the list now, I'm about 75% done.

@ all the people who deactivated their facebook account on 11/4.

So far, not much in the way of anyone important. A couple of former dept of corrections workers and 1 retired cop from east bumble####, MO.

 

[SacramentoBob]

A lot of these people seem to be "out" on their social media anyway.

 

[PIK95]

Any public figures?

 

[msommer]

You are either for free speech or against. If you want to curtail speech well I can't get on that train. Even when it is some doosh I would prefer to punch in his/her speech hole. We must allow ourselves to be challenged by speech we disagree with and fight it with our own speech. That is the way a truly free society works. Otherwise it's the KKK today and someone you don't hate tomorrow.

So you are against libel and slander laws?

free speech <> being able to say whatever you want with no consequences

See the bolded which does seem to indicate that NCC used the = in stead of the <> in your statement

 

[The Commish]

You are either for free speech or against. If you want to curtail speech well I can't get on that train. Even when it is some doosh I would prefer to punch in his/her speech hole. We must allow ourselves to be challenged by speech we disagree with and fight it with our own speech. That is the way a truly free society works. Otherwise it's the KKK today and someone you don't hate tomorrow.

So you are against libel and slander laws?

free speech <> being able to say whatever you want with no consequences

See the bolded which does seem to indicate that NCC used the = in stead of the <> in your statement

yeah, no

 

[NCCommish]

You are either for free speech or against. If you want to curtail speech well I can't get on that train. Even when it is some doosh I would prefer to punch in his/her speech hole. We must allow ourselves to be challenged by speech we disagree with and fight it with our own speech. That is the way a truly free society works. Otherwise it's the KKK today and someone you don't hate tomorrow.

So you are against libel and slander laws?

free speech <> being able to say whatever you want with no consequences

See the bolded which does seem to indicate that NCC used the = in stead of the <> in your statement

I have said several times and in many threads speech has consequences. However those consequences, except in criminal/civil cases, can't be driven by government action. That is censorship. Obviously you can get fired or maybe radio stations refuse to play your music.

So I think you should be able to say what you want. But of course you have to be willing to live with the consequences of saying it. I just don't want us as a matter of policy denying people their right to expose themselves and their radical agendas.

 

[msommer]

You are either for free speech or against. If you want to curtail speech well I can't get on that train. Even when it is some doosh I would prefer to punch in his/her speech hole. We must allow ourselves to be challenged by speech we disagree with and fight it with our own speech. That is the way a truly free society works. Otherwise it's the KKK today and someone you don't hate tomorrow.

So you are against libel and slander laws?

free speech <> being able to say whatever you want with no consequences

See the bolded which does seem to indicate that NCC used the = in stead of the <> in your statement

I have said several times and in many threads speech has consequences. However those consequences, except in criminal/civil cases, can't be driven by government action. That is censorship. Obviously you can get fired or maybe radio stations refuse to play your music.

So I think you should be able to say what you want. But of course you have to be willing to live with the consequences of saying it. I just don't want us as a matter of policy denying people their right to expose themselves and their radical agendas.

Do you consider laws describing the consequences of, say, being caught drunk driving as attempts to curtail said behavior?

I posit that it is.

 

[NCCommish]

You are either for free speech or against. If you want to curtail speech well I can't get on that train. Even when it is some doosh I would prefer to punch in his/her speech hole. We must allow ourselves to be challenged by speech we disagree with and fight it with our own speech. That is the way a truly free society works. Otherwise it's the KKK today and someone you don't hate tomorrow.

So you are against libel and slander laws?

free speech <> being able to say whatever you want with no consequences

See the bolded which does seem to indicate that NCC used the = in stead of the <> in your statement

I have said several times and in many threads speech has consequences. However those consequences, except in criminal/civil cases, can't be driven by government action. That is censorship. Obviously you can get fired or maybe radio stations refuse to play your music.So I think you should be able to say what you want. But of course you have to be willing to live with the consequences of saying it. I just don't want us as a matter of policy denying people their right to expose themselves and their radical agendas.

Do you consider laws describing the consequences of, say, being caught drunk driving as attempts to curtail said behavior?I posit that it is.

Well that's the intent of pretty much every law. And I am not advocating no punishment for slander or libel or communicating threats that's why I mentioned criminal and civil proceedings in that post. I am saying that when we start down the road of shutting down speech that we find offensive and that is its big crime that's a bad road to get.on.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Found this photo-journal pretty interesting. Some pretty sorry looking people in the Klan. No wonder they wear hoods.

Interesting pics. As a note, the little girl in the crocs has her shoes on the wrong feet.

Nice catch.

 

[msommer]

You are either for free speech or against. If you want to curtail speech well I can't get on that train. Even when it is some doosh I would prefer to punch in his/her speech hole. We must allow ourselves to be challenged by speech we disagree with and fight it with our own speech. That is the way a truly free society works. Otherwise it's the KKK today and someone you don't hate tomorrow.

So you are against libel and slander laws?

free speech <> being able to say whatever you want with no consequences

See the bolded which does seem to indicate that NCC used the = in stead of the <> in your statement

I have said several times and in many threads speech has consequences. However those consequences, except in criminal/civil cases, can't be driven by government action. That is censorship. Obviously you can get fired or maybe radio stations refuse to play your music.So I think you should be able to say what you want. But of course you have to be willing to live with the consequences of saying it. I just don't want us as a matter of policy denying people their right to expose themselves and their radical agendas.

Do you consider laws describing the consequences of, say, being caught drunk driving as attempts to curtail said behavior?I posit that it is.

Well that's the intent of pretty much every law. And I am not advocating no punishment for slander or libel or communicating threats that's why I mentioned criminal and civil proceedings in that post. I am saying that when we start down the road of shutting down speech that we find offensive and that is its big crime that's a bad road to get.on.

I don't disagree but you were saying we must not curtail, yet you agree that there already are curtailments in place that you do not wish to remove. Hate speech laws would be further curtailments. Is it a slope? Maybe. Is it slippery? Maybe.

It doesn't have to be, hasn't been in many European countries. Elsewhere, yes, but not where courts are independent and the society in general works. At least I'm not aware of any examples.

 

[NCCommish]

You are either for free speech or against. If you want to curtail speech well I can't get on that train. Even when it is some doosh I would prefer to punch in his/her speech hole. We must allow ourselves to be challenged by speech we disagree with and fight it with our own speech. That is the way a truly free society works. Otherwise it's the KKK today and someone you don't hate tomorrow.

So you are against libel and slander laws?

free speech <> being able to say whatever you want with no consequences

See the bolded which does seem to indicate that NCC used the = in stead of the <> in your statement

I have said several times and in many threads speech has consequences. However those consequences, except in criminal/civil cases, can't be driven by government action. That is censorship. Obviously you can get fired or maybe radio stations refuse to play your music.So I think you should be able to say what you want. But of course you have to be willing to live with the consequences of saying it. I just don't want us as a matter of policy denying people their right to expose themselves and their radical agendas.

Do you consider laws describing the consequences of, say, being caught drunk driving as attempts to curtail said behavior?I posit that it is.

Well that's the intent of pretty much every law. And I am not advocating no punishment for slander or libel or communicating threats that's why I mentioned criminal and civil proceedings in that post. I am saying that when we start down the road of shutting down speech that we find offensive and that is its big crime that's a bad road to get.on.

I don't disagree but you were saying we must not curtail, yet you agree that there already are curtailments in place that you do not wish to remove. Hate speech laws would be further curtailments. Is it a slope? Maybe. Is it slippery? Maybe.It doesn't have to be, hasn't been in many European countries. Elsewhere, yes, but not where courts are independent and the society in general works. At least I'm not aware of any examples.

Actually you may want to check out where the Brits are after starting down this road. We wouldn't call what they have free speech at this point. I am against hate speech laws we already have enough speech laws. Today the KKK is hate speech, but the concern is what's hate speech tomorrow? And who decides?

 

[SacramentoBob]

This sure fizzled out.