If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE

Anti-cyberbullying legislation

edited 2011-07-17 21:44:10 in General
Glaives are better.
Because DAMN the rights of humans and the constitution, WE HAVE MIDDLE CLASS WHITE GIRLS TO PROTECT!
«13

Comments

  • While obviously caring about only white girls is bad, why does the entire internet hate middle class white people?
  • Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    What about low-income children who get mocked for accepting free lunches?

    What about racial minorities who are ridiculed on the basis of their race?

    What about gay people who are harrassed for their sexual orientation?

    What about middle-class white boys who aren't alpha males, heck?
  • Give us fire! Give us ruin! Give us our glory!
    Does this mean with this bill, I can't troll shit anymore? D:
  • Creature - Florida Dragon Turtle Human
    Someone has yet to post a link to an actual bill so I cannot answer your question.
  • edited 2011-07-17 21:50:24
    Glaives are better.

    Because as a whole we're terrible people. 

    There's also the whole combination of being privileged AND self-loathing and having little to no culture that I find nauseating as well. Plus there's the whole "WAHH MY PARENTS DON'T UNDERSTAND ME" shit that every middle class white kid goes through.

    EDIT: 

    1. Deal with it.

    2. Deal with it.

    3. Deal with it.

    4. Deal with it.

    If you can't laugh off someone (or at the very least block them) who doesn't like you online, you have no place being online.

  • Glenn: Never said we shouldn't care about them.

    But the internet seems to think that Middle Class White People are the cause of all of today's problems.
  • ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    What about low-income children who get mocked for accepting free lunches?
    Less money spent on bad food, more money saved for the future.

    What about racial minorities who are ridiculed on the basis of their race?
    Haters gonna hate

    What about gay people who are harrassed for their sexual orientation?
    Gay is the problem. If they were bisexual then they would only get 1/3 of the ridicule they get for their monosexuality.

    What about middle-class white boys who aren't alpha males, heck?

    man up.
  • Yes I know I totally get this like I should feel guilty for being A lower middle class European American and that I have to be a starving kid in Africa or North Korea to be allowed to ocmplain.
  • Glaives are better.
    I don't get why "Deal with it" isn't the default response to someone who complains about shit they can control. Why should we strip away our fundamental rights just because people can't stand the idea that someone out there doesn't like them?
  • ☭Unstoppable Sex Goddess☭
    I don't get why "Deal with it" isn't the default response to someone who complains about shit they can control.

    Because complaining and dealing with it can be done simultaneously.
  • Glaives are better.
    Dealing with it by not trying to take away my rights, I mean. If you want to cry about it, go ahead. Don't try to legislate your problems away.
  • Because these people won't shut up about it.

    And humanity as a whole is too dumb to realize that "deal with it" is an option.
  • This brings several things to mind actually alot of quotes to sum up my feelings on this.

    • I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.
      • To Archibald Stuart, Philadelphia, 23 December 1791
      • Cited in Jefferson, Thomas (2002). "1791". in Jerry Holmes. Thomas Jefferson: A Chronology of His Thoughts. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. p. 128. ISBN 0742521168.

    • After all, if freedom of speech means anything, it means a
      willingness to stand and let people say things with which we disagree,
      and which do weary us considerably.
      • Zechariah Chafee; in Chafee (1920). Freedom of Speech. Harcourt, Brace and Howe. pp. p. 366.

    • I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

    • Strange it is that men should admit the validity of the arguments
      for free speech but object to their being "pushed to an extreme", not
      seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are
      not good for any case.
      • John Stuart Mill, 'On Liberty' Ch. 2, Mill (1985). On Liberty. Penguin. pp. p. 108.

    • It was not by accident or coincidence that the rights to freedom in
      speech and press were coupled in a single guaranty with the rights of
      the people peaceably to assemble and to petition for redress of
      grievances. All these, though not identical, are inseparable. They are
      cognate rights, and therefore are united in the First Article's
      assurance.




  • What about middle-class white boys who aren't alpha males, heck?

    To be fair, they deserve it.
  • Glaives are better.
    Yeah. It's not my fault that not every guy is as alpha as I am.
  • "Dealing with it by not trying to take away my rights, I mean."

    Damn, I hate Internet libertarians.

    "If you can't laugh off someone (or at the very least block them) who doesn't like you online, you have no place being online."

    ...

    For one thing, you think bullies only do things as single units? There's a reason they are often seen with at least two dim-witted accomplices in fiction, and that's not even getting into the bystander effect.

  • Hey hey Abyss he's a Neocon. or at least he says he is. Would you like to test that Hatter?
  • MORONS! I'VE GOT MORONS ON MY PAYROLL!
    Teenagers do not automatically legally have the same rights adults do.

    The end.
  • and that bugs me that their rights are violated. but again your speaking of the positive concept of rights we're talking about the negative concept.
  • Glaives are better.

    Byssy, please. It takes a couple of clicks to permanently block someone from your facebook or email account. And if you do let them post shit on your wall, eventually they'll get bored and wander off, and that's if you haven't reported their account for harassment already.

    This isn't real life, where standing up to bullies carries the possibility of physical harm. This shit is simple.


  • And what a life. Constantly needing to block people on the Internet, thus living in fear of them harassing you for being different.

    You talk about rights. So what precious rights of yours are being violated by this legislation? Do you even consider the victims' rights to be free of a hostile environment?

  • MORONS! I'VE GOT MORONS ON MY PAYROLL!
    Certainly emotional and psychological damage can't be just as harmful during the most confusing and transformative years of someone's life! Bah! Therapy's for pussies!
  • the victim can be free of it. by avoiding such a situation or doing somthing about it Freedom is the right to tell others what they do not want to hear.
  • Glaives are better.

    And tell me, where in the Constitution does it state that you have the right not to be made fun of?

    Oh, yeah, now I remember: the right to freedom of speech shall not be infringed.

    And if you have problems clicking that little "X" button on some idiot's comment every so often, then maybe you should reconsider having a facebook account in the first place. Certainly, the agony of having to click MULTIPLE TIMES to block someone is too high a price to pay for you to play Farmville.

  • Th e notion that free speech has a middle ground is absurd. There is no such thing it can't be limited without being lost.
  • Also Hatter you made a common mistake the Constitution doesn't givre us our rights it strictly defines the government do it doesn't violate them. See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
  • "the victim can be free of it. by avoiding such a situation or doing somthing about it"

    My patience is growing thin.

    They are not free, but controlled by the situation if they have to consciously avoid it. As for doing something about it, a major tactic of psychological bullying is that the victim is coerced against calling out for help, especially when the bystander effect is factored in.

  • So that justifies limitation of free speech?
  • Glaives are better.
    My point about the government being unable to constitutionally regulate basic interactions on the internet stands, though. The right to free speech cannot be infringed.
  • edited 2011-07-17 22:30:56
    Yes Hatter that's not what i'm saying i'm just correcting a bit of a misconception I agree with your statement though.
Sign In or Register to comment.