What did you do with my RWHN?

[MMIX]

Hey guys, I'm posting ITT from Texas!

Is that your location or your political stance?




ETA Apologies to Texas residents, this is undoubtedly a cheap crack

[AFK]

My political stance is very Maine.

Of course it is my location.

[Suu]

My political stance is very Maine.

Of course it is my location.

No. Your political stance is New Hampshire.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Non sequitur.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Which of course means hes got nothing. Hes stuck. Kinda like when he refused to acknowledge whether or not he was threatening legal action when ech told him that would be an instaban.

[AFK]

My political stance is very Maine.

Of course it is my location.

No. Your political stance is New Hampshire.

No, that would be my girlfriend.  I am very Moderate Maine.

[AFK]

But seriously, I really am in Texas.  Austin to be exact.  A big Anti-Drug Coalition conference here this week.

[AFK]

Which of course means hes got nothing. Hes stuck. Kinda like when he refused to acknowledge whether or not he was threatening legal action when ech told him that would be an instaban.

Stuck in what?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I reckon your inability to refute the assertion that you have less respect for human life than you had previously thought and choose not to acknowledge the fact. That might lead to the possibility that you might have to change your mind about something. Thats just a guess though. The more you type the less sense you make. I honestly have less and less of an idea of just what goes on in your head.

[AFK]

The problem is that you've made an uninformed assumption about certain views I've had now and before you joined.  My hawkishness towards any kind of criminal act where children and youth are victims is not new.  I've never had respect for the sort of human life that would commit such crimes.  We've never really had a big death penalty debate either, but I've always been, at best, moderate on the death penalty.  I think there are some crimes that are so heinous where that punishment can be appropriate.  But, it really has to be beyond a sliver of a doubt, and there should be ample opportunities for due process, appeals, etc., to make sure they get it right.


So nothing has changed.  It's just that pretty much every heated debate involving me has been drugs.  Oh, maybe a piracy one here and there.  I'm strongly anti-piracy if you want to take that one up too. 

[Freeky]

Trying to discuss things with him will only give you guys a headache, you know.  Just saying.

[East Coast Hustle]

I agree with the New Yorker's take:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/07/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-rolling-stone-cover-controversy.html

But just because something sparks outrage doesn't mean that it is outrageous. Menino, on Wednesday, added that the cover, or perhaps the story itself, "should have been about survivors or first responders." There have been many moving and illuminating stories about the victims of the marathon attack, and the people who selflessly came to their aid, but this is not one of them. Instead, the Rolling Stone article is about the still largely mysterious backstory of a young man who transformed, in what appears to be a short amount of time, from a seemingly normal college student into an alleged terrorist. The facts of his life are important, the larger social implications of his biography are important—and so this story has the potential to be a valuable contribution to the public record and to the general understanding of one of the most serious incidents of domestic terrorism in American history. And so, in the plainest terms, Rolling Stone chose to promote an article about Dzhokhar Tsarnaev with a photo of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev—one that other news outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post, had previously published. It does not appear that the magazine altered the image in any meaningful way. Nor does the photograph convey an editorial opinion about the subject; the accompanying cover text, meanwhile, identifies Tsarnaev as a "monster." It shows him as he looked when he allegedly killed four people and injured hundreds more.

Many commenters on Facebook have complained that the image gives Tsarnaev the "rock star" treatment—that his scruffy facial hair; long, curly hair; T-shirt; and soft-eyed glance straight at the camera all make him look like just another Rolling Stone cover boy, whether Jim Morrison or any of the many longhairs who appeared in the magazine's nineteen-seventies heyday. But these elements are not engineered. What is so troubling about this image, and many of the others that have become available since April, is that Tsarnaev really does look like a rock star. In this way, the photograph on Rolling Stone is of a part with the often unexpected, and unsettling, portrait of Tsarnaev that has emerged over the past few months.

It's bullshit and misses the point.  It isn't "troubling", it's disrespectful and minimizes the pain and tragedy he caused.

"Oh, let's examine the poor dear and see why he went wrong."

Yeah, clearly someone's hurt little fee-fees are more important than examining something like this with the hope of gaining some understanding and maybe some insight into how to prevent this sort of thing from happening again.

It should be physically painful to be as stupid as you are.

[East Coast Hustle]

Denial that there is a new you and an old you. This has nothing to do with your views on public health but rather your personality and how you interact with us. To say that youre the same guy that you were when i joined isnt true. It seems to of that that is also the general consensus.

Oh, sure, absolutely my interaction has changed, when it became clear that I was being reviled solely because of my position on drug policy.  It spilled into anything else I posted about.  TGRR illustrates that perfectly with his summation of my threads in the PD subforum, or you with my puns.  So yeah, I figured if I'm going to be reviled no matter what, I might as well go all in.

So I ask you again, why are you still here?

My reasons are my own.

Well the fact that you can't or won't articulate them here speaks volumes, doesn't it?

[Telarus]

My roommate had a "crazy" theory that the media narrative spun around the Trayvon Martin case, and now the publicizing of the Tsanaev kid on Rolling Stone, is an attempt by the intelligence services to initiate general unrest (Arab spring style) in order to push militarization of domestic responders.



I don't buy that 100%, but it's an interesting theory.


And it's reactions like RWHN's which (on a mass scale ) would make this possible.


(Also, DUDE, THIS IS THE INTERNET... we can only form a picture of the "person" you are by the types of interactions you have with us...... basic memetic theory there man. But the whole "the reasons are my own" thing is shady as fuck.)

[East Coast Hustle]

The problem is that you've made an uninformed assumption about certain views I've had now and before you joined.  My hawkishness towards any kind of criminal act where children and youth are victims is not new.  I've never had respect for the sort of human life that would commit such crimes.  We've never really had a big death penalty debate either, but I've always been, at best, moderate on the death penalty.  I think there are some crimes that are so heinous where that punishment can be appropriate.  But, it really has to be beyond a sliver of a doubt, and there should be ample opportunities for due process, appeals, etc., to make sure they get it right.


So nothing has changed.  It's just that pretty much every heated debate involving me has been drugs.  Oh, maybe a piracy one here and there.  I'm strongly anti-piracy if you want to take that one up too. 

So you advocate state-sponsored homicide.