And this is why I often put the concept of basic income in terms of what we could be paying for people to be in jail instead when explaining why I support it to my more economically conservative acquaintances.
Good luck with that. There are basically two scenarios here to consider in a popular violent revolution:
1) The army sides with the people. In this case, the right to keep and bear arms is basically irrelevant as you have the backing of the world's most powerful army.
2) The army sides with the government. In this case, even the militia types with huge munitions caches don't stand a chance against the world's most powerful army. This is not 1776, it wouldn't be musket vs. musket.
Don't be so sure about that, the Federal government (or more specifically, the DHS) has been currying favor with local and state LEO orgs through funding and equipment distribution programs.
The relatively recent militarization of various police forces is evidence of that, and, much like the USG exerted pressure over west European allied countries to ground Bolivia's presidential plane, they will exert similar control over state and local police forces through "greater cooperation" policies.
One thing that's quite unusual about our system is that policing power is smeared across the local, state and Federal levels, with the vast majority of it at the first. This imposes massive constraints on a would be Federal level tyranny.
That's certainly one way to look at it. On the other hand, the same powerful army has struggled on several occasions recently to put down insurgencies from determined, armed local populations in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Colombia, and several other places. Of course, in a Civil War II situation, there might not be the same constraint to wrap up the operation before popular support dwindles.
Occupying a hostile United States could possibly be the quagmire to end all quagmires.
Then again, in all those cases you cite they had a secure rear area, one reason I cite the "Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics" maxim. That's a much, much sticker proposition; as you posit, "the quagmire to end all quagmires", we're an ornery people.
The other issue is the "rights to bear arms" has never been a factor in any civil rights dispute in the US, whether it was systematically oppressing black people for generations or one-off riots or strike-breaking in which cops fired on crowds without causing wider conflicts as a consequence.
(arguably the one area in which citizen-owned firearms have actively affected the history of US civil liberty is in carrying out the occasional assassination of people adjudged to have been bit too keen on civil liberties)
Yep. There's a great article by the Atlantic called The Secret History of Guns.  I'll go over a couple of interesting points.
- Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a concealed carry permit after his house was bombed in 1956. After that he had armed supporters stand guard outside his house. King's house was described as "an arsenal."
- The co-founder of the Black Panthers found a law on the books allowing them to open carry in California. Blacks were getting no protection by the police so this was pretty pivotal. The Panthers started arming themselves and had a picnic outside the State's Capital building. After this happened the racist California legislature pushed through a law banning open carry. It was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. Funny enough, he was the first president endorsed by the NRA.
- "After losing the Civil War, Southern states quickly adopted the Black Codes, laws designed to reestablish white supremacy by dictating what the freedmen could and couldn’t do. One common provision barred blacks from possessing firearms. To enforce the gun ban, white men riding in posses began terrorizing black communities."
- "In the 1920s and ’30s, the NRA was at the forefront of legislative efforts to enact gun control"
A bit of unmentioned history: the NRA wasn't in the business, so to speak, of endorsing candidates until after the 1977 Cincinnati Revolt (at the annual meeting), so Reagan or Carter were the first Presidents they could possibly endorse. Carter was anti-gun but smart enough not to be visibly, Reagan signed the Gun Owners Protection Act of 1986 reigning in the BATF, without which we very possibly wouldn't have a gun culture today (or perhaps we'd have tested out this thesis of armed resistance and revolt).
ADDED: Every major party Presidential candidate after 1977 has been a gun grabber with the possible exception of Romney (details on request), the NRA's only been able to endorse the least worst, or in 1992 and 1996 endorse neither.
The bit about the "1920s and '30s" is more fair, but if you read the full text and know about all that the NRA didn't support, including the cited inclusion of handguns in the NFA of '34, "forefront" falls short of the mark. And of course per the Cincinnati Revolt that NRA isn't the modern NRA, which nowadays has done a 180 on concealed carry, the gravamen of this article's claim. Major NRA figure Marion Hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Hammer) was the leader in establishing Florida's 1987 shall issue law, which opened the floodgates so that today 42 states, soon to be 43 with Illinois, have shall issue regimes.
Circling back to MLK, today he wouldn't have much difficulty getting a concealed carry permit (or set of them) good in most of the nation, including all of the South.
Lots of liberals were famously armed when they went into the South, like Eleanor Roosevelt, many blacks kept themselves alive or less repressed with personal firearms, like Condoleezza Rice's father and his friends, and then there's the Deacons for Defense and Justice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice . jivatmanx in the other reply right now covers a bit of what happened prior to and during the Civil War; I hail from the southern edge of what you might call Bleeding Missouri and have studied it a bit, guns were most certainly a very important factor.
As for strike-breaking and all that, while it's not an area I've studied, it's well established that both sides were armed and used their guns.
I'm not saying many liberals, strikers and black people weren't armed and prepared to fight where it favoured them.
I'm saying they were, and people got oppressed in a far more direct, blatant and universal manner than anything that is likely to emerge from PRISM or the present US government's policy goals. Citizen-owned firearms might have been handy in the odd skirmish, but they didn't cause legislators or law enforcement to back down. Black people sat in the back of the bus and grudgingly accepted there wasn't much they could do about their neighbour getting lynched. Strikes were bust in a blaze of gunfire and millions of other members of the trade union movement went to work as normal the next day. Even as determined a revolutionary as John Brown failed where the Union military succeeded a year later.
Concern that the oppressed could potentially gain access to firearms neither dissuaded administrations from enacting oppressive laws nor accelerated the pace of their removal.
However, I have yet to see anyone seriously suggest that the Civil Rights Act was introduced because the police were terrified that black people defying segregation laws might shoot them, or the Supreme Court ruled segregation in schools unconstitutional because it had proved unenforceable. For that matter, those Southern whites who thought their rights were being violated by "forced busing" proved equally reluctant to resort to armed confrontation. It wasn't a hot war, or even a cold war, it was a culture war.
The right to bear arms was orthogonal to the civil rights movement: it didn't prevent the original introduction of the tyranny off "Jim Crow" laws which were effectively enforced for decades, didn't influence the legislative and judicial rulings against them in the mid 20th century and couldn't even protect the movement's key figures.
Obviously we disagree, I think the RKBA allowed a lot of blacks to continue pushing by allowing them to continue living, or living longer, or limiting the degree to which they could be easily intimidated.
One thing you're not factoring in when you compare this period to the Reconstruction and Jim Crow eras is economics and technology. Everyone including blacks were much more able to afford small arms and ammo by the civil rights era, and guns were a lot more maintainable after we switched to non-corrosive primers and smokeless powder. And of course technological advances helped the economics by driving down the intrinsic costs of guns and ammo.
I actually think it is supposed to make it a challenge to eat properly, to prove - at least when these manners were invented centuries ago - that one was a well-educated and respected member of the right part of society.
At the same time these rules were invented, you would have been hanged or worse for a good word, because of your left-handedness. Weirdo.
I'd love to import my zone files into either (or both) DNSimple and Route53 so I can try switching over.
Now, if I could only get into my Zerigo account to get my zone files. Alas!
UPDATE: Zerigo's dashboard is working for me again as of 6:30 EDT. I'm trying to export my zone files, but I get "Error exporting domain for download. Please wait a few minutes and try again." I'll keep trying.
Our CMS, Forge (http://factore.ca/forge-cms) is a semi-open source (in that you're free to use it for whatever you want but we don't have a community built up for it yet) Ruby on Rails CMS that focuses on rapid application development. It's VERY opinionated (moreso than Rails) but it lets you get things done really quickly and mostly stays out of your way on the front-end. Shoot me a message if you're interested in checking it out.
0. Violentacrez sure seems to be disgusting, based on his online persona.
1. If you stand for free speech, you are going to be defending assholes and thugs and people who say disgusting things. We don't need free speech for people who emit rainbows. The ACLU defended the KKK's right to march, not because they thought the KKK was a bunch of nice guys or that the KKK would ever return the favor if the ACLU were in trouble.
2. It's more about the doxxing, which seems to be the one legal thing that isn't allowed on reddit. Either they have the policy that doxxing is horrible or they don't.
There are numerous different defintions of free speech. Some countries draw the line in different places. E.g. in the USA, you cannot say "shout fire in a crowded theatre", and there are various laws against revelaing some USA military knowledge. All "right to free speech" laws have limits, as they should.
It's more about the doxxing, which seems to be the one legal thing
Here's a thought, in the EU, we have data protection/privacy law. It's illegal to release personal details of people unless it's within the law. I wonder is doxing illegal?
Common misconception. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not a crime. The crime is causing a panic without cause: if you've got a good cause (for example, if there really is a fire) then you've done nothing wrong. The crime in releasing classified documents is in the breach of trust, not in the leak itself. Libel and slander are types of fraud: the crime comes from the falsehood, not the statements themselves. Free speech should be absolute and sacrosanct, but this doesn't mean it should protect people from breaking the law.
The folks in creepshots and its kin are in fact doing something against the law, and they should be shut down accordingly. This is not a free-speech issue.
But don't you see, that's the point. There are limits on "free speech", you just declare something as illegal. This kind of thinking is how many other countries have laws banning certain speech, which USA courts would probably view as protected. E.g. in EU you have the right to privacy, so there are various laws that say you cannot report things about some people without their consent. That sort of thing might be protected in USA. But the EU say "Wrecking someone's privacy is a crime, and we have free speech". Saying "All speech is protected, but if there are some laws then the thing doesn't count as speech and hence isn't allowed to be protected", is misleading, because loads of countries follow that rule, but have different free speech rules.
Every country decides where to set it's limits, the USA is almost certainly the one that has a few limits as possible, but it has limits, it has set the line somewhere/
Re: Freespeech. No one is asking the government to censor reddit. Users are taking things into their own hands because the private company that owns reddit refuses to moderate completely inappropriate material. The system is working just as it should.
This is a fairly typical position - i.e. private corporations are under no obligation to protect free speech, therefore censorship in a private context is okay.
Which is an argument that flies legally, but not morally depending on what you believe.
If you believe in free speech, then using the fact that your website is private to censor others is not a violation of the law, but it certainly seems like a violation of your own declared ideology. Which is to say, you would support free speech until it got inconvenient.
Reddit as a community seems to place a high value on free speech, so while they're under no legal obligation to keep things open, it would be a violation of its own declared ideology if they started censoring.
Note that I don't miss the creepy subreddits at all, but if you're one of the people on /r/politics, /r/atheism, or whatever who are quoting Voltaire all the time, it seems hypocritical to call for censorship.
The speech of these users is still free, but there are consequences to what they say. For example, the consequence here is that their creepshots results in others naming them and exercising their own right to speech as well. I'm also not at all calling for censorship. As I said, the creeps want their free speech and are getting it, as well as others exercising their rights too. I do think it is quite unfair that the tumblr with names was deleted, but again, Tumblr has a right to police their site as they see fit.
Ultimately, I think it is exploitative of the reddit corporation and their masters to allow completely disgusting and clearly immoral content. This is 2012. The internet isn't the wild west anymore.
It wasn't about censorship by the government, it was about censorship within reddit.
For better or worse, the reddit admins want free speech, in which the admins don't prohibit anything that isn't illegal in the US. The one exception, which they apply in a viewpoint-neutral basis, is doxxing. The policy is "no doxxing," not "no doxxing unless you really really hate someone."
Now, you can say that the doxxers were doing their version of protest. Civil disobedience, I guess, because they think that reddit's approach to free speech is wrong. We now have two mutually exclusive philosophies in conflict, and reddit will need to choose one of them.
While we are at it, lets also unmask people with blogs about living a closeted gay life, conservative profs trying to become tenured, girl geeks blogging about sexism in their workplace, and other such inappropriate material.
The point is that getting upset at being doxxed is hypocritical when you're invading the privacy of multiple women. The fact that people who post there feel that they have the 'right' to have a safe haven for posting disgusting and degrading photos is craziness.
Sure, the guy's an asshole and can't really expect better. But doxxing is vigilantism. In your own words, would you agree with everyone else's definition of "disgusting and degrading photos", and endorse any vigilantism against such?
Direct action is always a product of anarchy. If Reddit wants to run an anarchistic community, why shouldn't it be "policed" by vigilantes? What right-protecting organization is out there now to moderate subreddits? IMO this situation is different from the other hypotheticals out there due to the fact that the moderators were knowingly encouraging the violation of privacy of others.
The point is when you get to decide who deserves anonymity online, other people with different opinions than yourself do too. There are plenty of people out there who would consider being gay just as morally damaging.
lets also unmask people with blogs about living a closeted gay life
Actually if that person is publically and actively opposing gay rights (e.g. political who blathers on about how bad gay people are and shouldn't have rights, and then is caught with a prostitute of the same gender), then yes, those people should be doxxes.
Neal Stephenson has a great quote on this (from the Diamond Age):
"You know, when I was a young man, hypocrisy was deemed the worst of vices. It was all because of moral relativism. You see, in that sort of a climate, you are not allowed to criticise others--after all, if there is no absolute right and wrong, then what grounds is there for criticism?
"Now, this led to a good deal of general frustration, for people are naturally censorious and love nothing better than to criticise others' shortcomings. And so it was that they seized on hypocrisy and elevated it from a ubiquitous peccadillo into the monarch of all vices..."
Yes that's a good point. However consider it from the perspective of a LGB community member. LGB people are broadly of the belief that one should come out when one's ready, and no-one should out someone without their permission. However that shouldn't apply to people who are actively working against the LGB community, the people who get up on stage and say "These people (LGB) are not full human beings" (as the Pope said recently). Those people should be outed.
> If you stand for free speech, you are going to be defending assholes and thugs and people who say disgusting things.
Violentacrez's speech rights do not automatically trump the privacy rights of his victims. His ideas and opinions can be communicated via speech that does not violate the rights of others, and so when balancing his speech rights against their privacy rights I'd favor the privacy rights.
>> 2. It's more about the doxxing, which seems to be the one legal thing that isn't allowed on reddit. Either they have the policy that doxxing is horrible or they don't.
I guess the question is whether that is a sensible policy. It may make sense to protect anonymity - I can see that - but does it make sense to protect nothing else? Is anonymity really the only true community value?
Regarding point 1: You are absolutely misguided. I have no obligation to defend them disgusting things until it is the government that is prosecuting the speech, rather than the community.
We have a moral obligation to protect free speech from government intrusion.
We have an equal or greater moral obligation to personally confront the KKK, and sexual predators in order to enforce moral standards within our community.
The government's job is to make sure we both get to speak, and don't kill each other over the disagreement. The first amendment has nothing to do with protecting KKK members from public shaming and expulsion for the views they profess.
"You" wasn't "you, thwest." It was to the reddit admins and their own desire to have a community of free speech. Once they, the reddit admins, decide that they, the reddit admins, want a community of free speech, then they, the reddit admins, are going to find themselves supporting the rights of assholes to speak.
If the reddit admins want to shoulder the same burden as the government in regards to free speech, I still believe in community self-policing of reddit by users. The admins won't shut down assholes, but neither shall they shutdown shaming of assholes.
Sure, but not by posting that info on Reddit with a link to the shamee's Reddit username. This is one of the only rules of Reddit, and it is for your protection, so people don't say "girlvinyl is KKK member and here is her legal name and address".
Anyone who attempts to defend the guy's actions on Reddit is an idiot and it was only a matter of time before someone brought their anger into the real world HOWEVER an individual is one thing, a reputable, established company is a totally different situation.
Sure they are media and sure the media loves a witch hunt but the bottom line is that their actions are threatening and it's blatant blackmail. In my opinion their actions are as disgusting as their targets online activity.
A prominent Reddit user who has been on the site for years and accumulated shit tons of karma and a proportionate amount of controversy. He established really questionable subreddits such as /r/jailbait and /r/incest and was extremely upfront about his motivations (claims it was more about exercising his right to free speech than being a pervert). The fact that he deleted his account is considered a big deal in the reddit world given his "reddit fame" and the fact that he was always willing to defend/justify his actions and never back down from said defence.
Stereotypical internet creep into all manner of "disgusting" things. Although his sexual preferences (and the content he posts) are very questionable, he's not a bad person. I think part of it is he enjoyed the drama, but at the same time he's just some guy with some interests that are beyond what most people deem acceptable.