'The Day We Fight Back' is an Internet Protest Against Mass Surveillance

90

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

JosephColt

"That's interesting."

No, I am saying you would unlikely call people abusive insults to someone face to face in real life, well maybe you would, but typically most people don't.

Take liberties with your character?

I have nothing to fear from you, what will you do, call me a dumb-ass?

"I don't know what's more sad, the fact that you don't realize that you're espousing censorship..."

You miss the point again. I am merely stating the worst of people comes out of the internet alongside the good. The internet, especially certain parts of it, are excellent forms of ways to discuss political issues and rally together without fear.

I don't quite see how you put together that I am a Nazi, hypocrite, enforcing censorship, worse than how you are acting, and anything else you have formulated about me from the simple fact I ask(insisted) that you stop verbally abusing other people, and show respect.

Sure, technically you can verbally abuse people here online all you want, but:

Does that mean it's right? No.
Does it act as an effective persuasion tool? No.
Does it make people not respect you? Yes.
Does it cause friction? Yes.
Does it make you look better? No.
Does it make you look mature? No.

I'm actually having a hard time taking you seriously, I just hope you're not an internet-troll, if so, well done.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>No, I am saying ... call me a dumb-ass ... I am a Nazi, hypocrite ... an internet-troll ... well done.

Really, there was nothing in there of any value or even provocative enough to compel me to bait you for more. So, I won't dignify any of it with a response. You clearly have your own agenda, and steering the conversation away from your statist ideals seems high on the list.

But that won't be too easy, as I'm more than glad to remind you of the topic at hand. The topic is that the warrantless domestic spying of the NSA is grossly beyond the boundaries of the Constitution. The topic is that yellow bellied cowards such as yourself seek to obfuscate the issue by claiming that the Constitution is vague and that the meaning is not clear and that there might be many interpretations.

But that argument flies in the face of history because the framers of the Constitution intended that the common man should understand it. When you have to go to school for 8 years and obtain a specialized law degree in Constitutional Law before you can be said to understand the Constitution, you have made a bastardization and a mockery of the foundations of this country. There is a reasonable expectation that every citizen should be able to understand his rights. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson said that when we had issues of interpretation we should reflect on the spirit of the time when the Constitution was written and go with the probable meaning, rather than trying to squeeze every ounce of interpretation out of the document.

Not only that, but the framers of the Constitution felt that the rights in the Bill of Rights were fundamental, irrevocable rights, endowed to every man at birth. They were almost eternal in their nature, and were never intended to be infringed upon.

But swine such as yourself will say that even if the Bill of Rights remains forever, the wording is vague and isn't applicable to the times we live in. You've said so yourself. But that's not true at all. The wording of the 4th amendment is precise, specific, clear, and understandable by almost anyone (yourself and some other imbeciles excluded). And so here it is:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

And so how hard is it to apply the simple, probable meaning of that amendment to our current way of life in the information age? Not hard. My emails, files, and other types of personal data are obviously covered as "papers, and effects". So, the government must first
obtain a warrant naming the specific file or piece of data they wish to obtain before they can just grab it. And if they just seize everyone's email, that would be akin to intercepting a mail carrier and rifling through his bag, an obvious infraction of our most basic rights.

You see, it's simple and not even unreasonable to expect that the government would play by the rules. These are rules that even the common man can understand, fittingly so because they pertain to his most basic and fundamental rights as a human being.

And so what do snakes like yourself do when confronted with the plain, simple, brazen truth? They again try to obfuscate the truth by twisting history and attempting to paint the founding fathers as morally bankrupt villains, incapable of governing justly and lacking any real understanding of or appreciation for freedom.

But the truth is that the founding fathers were men, imperfect just like the rest of us. But they were men who lived under tyranny and oppression. They were men who had seen the best and worst of men in both war and peace. They knew what it meant to live freely and they were bold enough to pay the very expensive cost of freedom. And out of that experience came what is probably the most comprehensive body of work on freedom in the history of man. And out of that body of philosophy there arose one beautiful, precious, endearing document that would endow men to endeavor to live freely as they never had before - the Constitution of The United States of America.

That's right, those imperfect, morally flawed men through pain and difficulty you have never come close to, and possessing an intellect to which you can never attain, produced the single most important document to the principles of freedom that mankind has ever known. Peoples aspiring to freedom all over the world have studied it and attempted to endear its principles to their own culture. It has been the single greatest influence for freedom in the entire world since the Bill of Rights was adopted 225 years ago. And what do you do? You sling mud at those heroic visionaries. And why? Because you are an ignorant turd. That's why.

But that's also what made them great. Men who were many times your better marched out onto the battle field with the spirit of freedom emblazoned in their hearts, and they laid down their lives so ignorant turds like yourself could go on being ignorant turds. And when the day was won they assembled together in order to form a more perfect union, one that would include ignorant turds like yourself. And having formed that blessed union they endeavored to create a governing body to protect ignorant turds like yourself. And they also devised a document clearly defining the roles, powers, and limitations of that governing body in order to ensure the rights of ignorant turds like yourself.

And so when you crap all over the reputations of those great men, and when your understanding of that governing body resembles diarrhea, and when you mistake the Constitution for toilet paper, I understand that it's because you're an ignorant turd.

avatar

JosephColt

I'll be honest, I am not going to read that wall of text since it has nothing to do with what I am saying to you, and looks like you posted common sense history.

I have important places to be for my job and deals to make, and reading your hateful comments on what little off time I have does not float my boat. I like to read other peoples comments on articles, but you're a perpetual offender that does not stop.

I have no desire to keep reading through walls of text, so let me finish this up here:

1. I never intended to debate politics with you in this article.

2. I just insisted that you show some respect to others here.

If you cannot show a shred of decency towards others then you shouldn't comment. Verbal abuse is just wrong, shows no class, and is not effective in conversations. If you want to debate or discuss an issue I will be more than happy to do so when you agree to show me, and others, the respect we all deserve.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>I'll be honest, I am not going to read that wall of text

My confidence was never very high that you would understand it in the first place.

>>since it has nothing to do with what I am saying to you,

I know. God forbid anyone put the boat back on course and return to the actual topic. That would put an end to your personal crusade, and we can't have that now can we?

>>and looks like you posted common sense history.

You're right. It is common sense history. It should need no explanation. So, why was it necessary to educate you to begin with?

>>1. I never intended to debate politics with you in this article.

Then you shouldn't be debating on this thread. It's political.

>>2. I just insisted that you show some respect to others here.

Why? You sure haven't shown me any respect. But insist away. A lot of life is not getting what you want. I hope you're learning from this.

avatar

JosephColt

Personal crusade? I simply asked/insisted you show respect to the other community members here, that is all.

Why are you trying to educate me on history(funny as it is) when I am not even really talking about politics or history at all, just your behavior.

You are not debating it either by making immature remarks at opinions you don't like, which is why I stepped in, your verbally abusing people like usual.

I have shown you some respect. I have listened to you, and I have not tried to keep you from speaking your opinion. I only want you to stop the verbal abuse and childish act that you convey because you do not like what others have to say. Common now, purposefully trying to publicly abuse and humiliate someone else for your enjoyment or because your desire it tells a lot about your character.

A lot of life isn't getting what you want, very true, but what is your point? So you're just admitting, "I don't give a ****, I will speak however I want, you little ***hole" to me?

I would actually love to hear what exactly I am supposed to learn from you.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Why are you trying to educate me on history(funny as it is) when I am not even really talking about politics or history at all, just your behavior.

And this, my barely sentient friend, is why we have nothing to discuss. I have made the efforts to reign you in and put this thread back on topic, but you flat out refuse to address anything that is on topic, and instead choose to rattle on with your childish rantings. So, in the interest of sparing everyone here more of your trollish idiocy, I will cease to respond to you at all. And if you can even manage to feign a shred of your hypocritical rectitude, you'll do the same.

avatar

JosephColt

You do not even know what at troll is if you consider me one.

Since you refuse to acknowledge my statements about your behavior I will assume you cannot argue against what you've done, and realize your folly. I do truly hope from now on you will act more respecting of others, and that doesn't mean you cannot argue your cause. If someone believes in something ignorantly that is incoherently bad show them your thoughts on the matter(ignorance in a subject does not constitute abuse).

Since you wish to end this argument, I will agree to that, I hope if we do discuss further topics possibly in the future in a more civil matter.

avatar

The Mac

How exactly is he advocating censorship by pointing out human nature of hiding behind anonymity as a shield for socially unacceptable behavior?

Its a fault.

You seem to be looking for a straw man here.

avatar

MaximumMike

As usual, you fail to reason. There is no straw man here. For someone who likes to pop off all this epsitomological terminology, I'd think you understood it. But let me explain. The original sentiment was that the fault with the internet was that people could say whatever they liked. And since it is considered a fault, it is also logical to reason that the writer would be in favor of remedying that fault. Logically, the remedy to that fault would be that people cannot say whatever they want on the internet. If people cannot say whatever they want on the internet, that is censorship. Pray tell, where have I failed logically?

It's infuriating how you constantly abuse logical terminology.

avatar

JosephColt

"The original sentiment was that the fault with the internet was that people could say whatever they liked. "

The original sentiment was that people can take advantage of anonymity doing what they like freely, and do whatever illegal or completely immature or disrespectful act they want without consequences like they can in real life. How did you even misunderstand what I said?

avatar

The Mac

Aaaaannnddd hes off....

bluster away...

ive got better things to do with my time than arguing with malcontents...

avatar

JosephColt

I'd actually like to apologize to you Mac, and others. These pathetic arguments inevitably go deeper, and can really pull someone in deeper into the rabbit hole. Probably not something people want to see in the comments section, and especially not a political argument.

avatar

MaximumMike

Annnnd make your comment and run away as usual. Say something logical and we won't have an argument.

avatar

The Mac

double post

avatar

jbitzer

But isn't making people afraid to speak their mind by causing them public shame a roundabout way to take away free speech?

avatar

MaximumMike

>>But isn't making people afraid to speak their mind by causing them public shame a roundabout way to take away free speech?

No it's not. Shame is a normal part of life. If I'm not threatening to harm you or censor you, then there's nothing wrong with what I'm saying. And besides, isn't what you're doing right now a form of censorship? Aren't you trying to shame me into changing the way I write? Jbitzer, I usually have a lot of respect for you, even when I don't agree with you. But right now you're being a hypocrite.

avatar

jbitzer

>No it's not. Shame is a normal part of life. If I'm not threatening to harm you or censor you, then there's nothing wrong with what I'm saying. And besides, isn't what you're doing right now a form of censorship? Aren't you trying to shame me into changing the way I write? Jbitzer, I usually have a lot of respect for you, even when I don't agree with you. But right now you're being a hypocrite.

And you're not threatening to harm or censor anyone, but whipping up a mob against them, or making them afraid to speak because you might is as effective as shutting them up with violence. The original post was aimed at Joseph Colt, and ABOUT how he was responding to you.

I also believe he'd be one of the first ones helping point out where Jews were hiding, because its seems he can't imagine a world where the government is clearly in the wrong.

avatar

JosephColt

Hold on there jbitzer.

Just to be sure, you're saying I would be the first to point out where the Jews are hiding?

I do see fault with the government, and a lot of it, I despise the actions of congress, for example, and how many powers are abused using government authority. It's a sad world we live in when we can do very little to stop such injustices.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>And you're not threatening to harm or censor anyone, but whipping up a mob against them, or making them afraid to speak because you might is as effective as shutting them up with violence. The original post was aimed at Joseph Colt, and ABOUT how he was responding to you.

Thanks for clarifying that. I think we share the same sentiments in this regard.

avatar

JosephColt

Jbitzer, that is a very good question.

People should be able to speak freely without shame, but there will always be people using public shame to oppress an opposing view point whether it be religious or political.

In this case, the guy above personally insults others, which in no way contributes positively to the discussions, he's a bully. It's hard to say, but it sure seemed like he wanted to play on emotions with derogatory language to oppress me when I questioned his actions, and he is probably not used to having to fight back against others. I don't have anything against him, but he should be able to let others speak their mind freely without humiliation.

So in a sense, you are correct.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>People should be able to speak freely without shame,

I'm sure every member of NAMBLA agrees with you. Unfortunately some kinds of speech warrant shame. And if you understood freedom of speech, you would understand that it's the freedom to say what you believe, even in the face of shame. If you can't face having your ideas help up to scrutiny, humiliation, and shame, then I say you lack the strength of your convictions.

>>In this case, the guy above personally insults others, which in no way contributes positively to the discussions, he's a bully

And you're an empty headed imbecile, full of contradictions but lacking the wit to be a paradox. Funny how you continue to talk down to me, while claiming the moral high ground. You think we agree where we don't and that we're different when you're worse. But at least I'm not trying to censor you.

>> he is probably not used to having to fight back against others.

Actually I rather enjoy it. But guys like you really aren't any fun. All you do is cry about etiquette and say very little of substance. You have made countless pleas about how others jumped to conclusions in regards to what you were saying. But what are you doing right now? Hypocrites like you are so sickening.

>>I don't have anything against him,

That's an empty lie. But I'm sure it sounded nice and morally superior when you wrote it.

>>but he should be able to let others speak their mind freely without humiliation.

Not when they're hypocritical jerks blathering nonsense and hijacking threads on important topics so they can make them about their own personal crusade. They should be scorned for that kind of conceit.

I'm sure you'll reply in your typical manner saying that I've entirely mischaracterized you. But in the same post you claimed to have nothing against me, while claiming that I am a bully who oppresses others by playing on their emotions and who is too cowardly to fight back. Those aren't exactly civil or respectful words. You sure like to say whatever you want about other people, but are unwilling to allow them the same courtesy. I despise people like you.

avatar

JosephColt

"Unfortunately some kinds of speech warrant shame."

I could understand your sentiments if someone was proposing to murder and rape people, but an opinion on NSA spying does not warrant that form of abuse.

----------------------------------------------------------

"And you're an empty headed imbecile,"

I am not talking down on you, nor I am trying to claim a moral high ground, but insisting that you stop abusing people here verbally instead of trying to persuade them like a respectful adult.

----------------------------------------------------------

"Actually I rather enjoy it."

I do believe that you've built up a personality of me in your head which is quite contrary to the truth. I've only insisted that you persuade others with reason in a respectful manner, that is all.

----------------------------------------------------------

"That's an empty lie."

Not true at all. I don't hate you because you make false assumptions about me, I pity you a bit for your distasteful attitude towards others here, but hate? No. I find it difficult to hate anyone, I can't get mad at people, really, I can't.

----------------------------------------------------------

"I'm sure you'll reply in your typical manner saying that I've entirely mischaracterized you."

Of course, it is rather true you do. I am only stating the fact that you are acting like a bully. You even stated you want to make people publicly humiliated who don't share the same opinion, in regards to the topic. That is how a bully acts, "my way or the highway."

I am being respectful as I possibly can, but when an individual is perpetually inflicting abusing attacks you have to call it as it is.

----------------------------------------------------------

"You sure like to say whatever you want about other people, but are unwilling to allow them the same courtesy. I despise people like you."

That is 100% wrong. I've want people to speak their mind, but they do not have to be abusive because an opinion is different.

I have not tried to oppress your right right to speak at all. I've listened, and responded, to you calmly and as respectful as I can. I don't personally find it suitable to perpetually abuse those who share different opinion though.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>I could understand your sentiments if someone was proposing to murder and rape people, but an opinion on NSA spying does not warrant that form of abuse.

To me, it does. And since I am the only person who decides how I write, my opinion is the only one that matters. Perhaps you don't understand the ramifications of this kind of spying if allowed to continue, but they are bad and will lead to things like rape and murder at the hands of the government. History has born that out.

>>That is how a bully acts, "my way or the highway."

Which is exactly how you act.

>>I have not tried to oppress your right right to speak at all.

No, that's entirely untrue. You've entirely derailed this thread with your moral crusade. You barely even comment on the topic, and instead rattle on about respect and abuse, while denying that you're worse than you make me out to be. How long do you intend to continue in your efforts to hijack this thread?

avatar

JosephColt

But, to me it does not warrant the same type of abuse.

You're opinion is the only one that matters?

Well to me, everyone opinion matters. People giving different opinions sheds different light on a topic.

I fully understand the ramifications, which is exactly why I said this is a good thing that it came to light, and now we can all discuss the issue, and how to solve it.

How am I acting like a bully? Is it because I want you to show respect to fellow community members and act like a civilized member of this community?

All I insisted in my first post was that you try and respect others. That fact you are making insulting comments is worse far worse than what I did. Making a comment with a single, and only, intention to insult someone with no reasoning or persuasion is immature at best.

I am worse? Am I worse because all I want is you to show maturity, respect, and understanding instead of verbally abusing people? If you showed those I would not say a single word to you, well unless I want to also make a civil rebuttal to your points.

avatar

jbitzer

>>We need NSA spying to keep an eye on the criminals and terrorists and if you're not one of them you should be just fine.

It seems there's a new moron coming out of the woodwork every day.<<

Just to be clear, the above post is what set off Joseph on his "you're a bad person" diatribe against Mike.

The OP should lose his right to vote since he's incapable of seeing how his own comments were the justification every totalitarian regime has ever used to trample on its citizens.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear is about 3 steps removed from "come into the showers, that water is warm!"

avatar

jbitzer

I'm actually on Maximum Mike's side in this. I apparently mixed up his and The Mac's arguments.

The NSA should immediately be disbanded as it is in their charter they are not allowed to operate on US persons, that includes US citizens in or out of the country, or Non citizens inside it.

How would you feel about the army stepping in to help out with traffic stops?

Joseph Colt is not answering your points so much as he is wagging his fingers at you saying you're a meanie and your opinions are therefore invalid.

requesting you to go and become intimate with your maternal parent sounds a lot nicer than calling you a motherfucker, but the meaning is the same.

avatar

JosephColt

I am not saying his opinions are invalid. I am saying his method is abusive in nature.

We can be better then this as people, plus immature language doesn't make argument more persuasive.

I would have probably not said anything, but his language is a continuing bad habit.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>I would have probably not said anything, but his language is a continuing bad habit.

And you're just the Nazi to come clean it up, right?

Now that's Godwin's Law.

avatar

JosephColt

When you're verbally abusing other people, which can be as bad as physical violence, I think I will insist that you cease and desist.

avatar

jbitzer

I don't see you calling out The Mac's method of branding everyone who doesn't don their Jack boots and march in lockstep as a malcontent.

People who don't suck up everything the government says or does are not malcontents, we are people who value our liberty and are smart enough to see that it's being taken away by using the same irrational and stupid fear tactics about "terrorists" and "people who want to do us harm" as those who were taught to hate Eastasia, because we've always been at war with Eastasia. You know, until we're at war with Eurasia.

Cheerleaders like The Mac act like their military experience gives them special insight to how we really need to treat the citizens like cattle, because they don't know the dangers we face standing on the wall every day (if I remember his previous arguments on this topic correctly)

My experience after a decade in the military taught me the government can't run a lemonade stand without mission creep, billion dollar cost overruns and cronyism. it would be the first lemonade stand that would require a full scale invasion of Cuba to secure their sugar plantations in the history of the world.

avatar

The Mac

Hes a malcontent due to his inability to communicate in a resonalbe socially acceptable manner, not his political views.

Unlike MaximumMike, i respect everyone's opinion weather i agree with it or not.

My belief that the NSA is necessary in the modern world, and is not unconstitutional has no reflection whatsoever on my opinion on the government as a whole, social programs, fiscal resonsibilities, or military support so you can keep you jackboots.

avatar

MaximumMike

>>Hes a malcontent due to his inability to communicate in a resonalbe socially acceptable manner, not his political views.

Who defines what is socially acceptable? You - the man who wants the NSA peeking in everyone's windows and dresser drawers? Well, unfortunately the moderators decide that on this forum. And it seems my comments are socially acceptable after all. Try again.

But I think you're a malcontent because you want to invade my privacy at gun point.

>>Unlike MaximumMike, i respect everyone's opinion weather i agree with it or not.

Cut the bullshit. You have no more respect for my opinion than I have for yours. The only difference between us is that I have the intellectual fortitude to defend mine, and you just label people and run away from arguments.

>>My belief that the NSA is necessary in the modern world, and is not unconstitutional has no reflection whatsoever on my opinion on the government as a whole, social programs, fiscal resonsibilities, or military support so you can keep you jackboots.

Jbitzer isn't the only person who has seen you make that connection. So if you're being honest with that statement, you might consider that what you're writing doesn't often paint that picture.

avatar

jbitzer

I understand the need for the NSA, however, I understand the need for them to monitor FOREIGN communications. I don't even have a problem with them monitoring in the US targeting citizens, but that it should definitely require a warrant, and not be used to supply all other government organizations with tips on who to raid, like they do the DEA and local law enforcement.

I also don't think they should have the authorization to check my friends and friends of my friends if they have reason to watch me, unless they get a warrant against them as well.

Is asking for a warrant so difficult? They have 72 hours leeway AFTER bugging that they can still get a warrant for those communications, so time critical information isn't an issue.

Vacuuming up everyone's data and searching it just in case you might be a terrorist is exactly the kinds of things we were preached were the horrors of living in the USSR back in the good old halcyon days of the Reagan era, along with having to show your papers on the train, sort of like the TSA and their VIPR operations nowadays. Let's not even get in to secret courts, extraordinary rendition, and domestic law enforcement agencies obtaining massive amounts of ammunition and battlefield equipment.

The NSA should not be targeting or mass collecting anything from the citizenry, they should target singular entities they have reasonable suspicion of being persons of interest. I don't know how people don't see this as a gross violation of the 4th amendment. You should be secure in your papers and effects, including communications unless there is a court issued warrant out on you.

I view the NSA collecting on everyone in the US as the same way I would seeing the army patrolling my hometown for vandalism and vagrancy. It is not their purpose, and is in direct opposition to the American ideals of freedom and government of by and for the people. Seriously, if finding out the government is monitoring their phone calls pisses off the American public, since we own the government, it should stop. That is not how a self ruled nation treats its citizens, it is how an oppressive regime controls its subjects.

avatar

The Mac

I respect that opinion, however as i stated earlier, i no longer get involved in these debates...

My response was purely to address your assertion that i seem to be some kind of liberal militant, when in fact i am a Registered Republican, but not a hardline libertarian.

avatar

jbitzer

Oh, I was fully aware you were republican, the use of the word "malcontent" gave it away. :)

avatar

The Mac

lol

avatar

The Mac

Worked on me, i wont get involved with these debates anymore.

avatar

jbitzer

The Mac, I actually find your arguments to be informative and useful. You do plenty of research that saves me the trouble looking things up when I want to argue the exact same point.

The problem is, some people are just afraid of shadows and will never be convinced that their securing safety is their own responsibility. They'd rather pass that responsibility on to the big powerful government, giving up their rights at the same time, so they have someone else to point a finger at instead of examining their own failings.

avatar

vrmlbasic

My Congressman has decided not to represent me, as I was Gerrymandered into her district after her election. Considering the now infamously terribad speech she gave to reporters recently I'm actually glad that she has decided not to represent me.

I agree about preaching to the choir. I have to wonder about the encryption scheme though as how do we know which encryption schemes haven't been exploited by the NSA and their ilk?

Time for the NSA to go.

avatar

Z5DELTA

"I have to wonder about the encryption scheme though as how do we know which encryption schemes haven't been exploited by the NSA and their ilk?"

I would suggest using an "Open" program such as TrueCrypt, open programs are less vulnerable to back doors due to the ability of the community (us) to scrutinize the code.
Good Luck, Phil B.