Stochastic Terrorism

[Perknose]

I've seen this term -- stochastic terrorism -- referenced by a least one other poster here. It gets to the heart of why and how Trump and his rhetoric has given cover and impetus to multiple political assassination attempts and the cowardly and indescribably hateful wholesale slaughter of innocents at worship, just in this last week.

Written by a rabbi:

"It is beyond obvious that Trump, Fox News, and the “soft” alt-right are guilty of what has been called “stochastic terrorism.” While they are not legally responsible for any individual particular terrorist act, including the slaughter in Pittsburgh, they have, over the past several years, created the environment in which “lone wolves” like Robert Bowers inevitably commit horrific acts.

In the case of stochastic terrorism, those responsible for it may still condemn each individual act of violence. They may sincerely be disgusted by it. But without their acts, it would not have happened. They are responsible.

By way of analogy, stochastic terrorists are like teenagers who put grain alcohol in a punch bowl. They may not be legally responsible when a bunch of kids get drunk, and one gets behind the wheel and kills someone in an accident. But any ethical human being knows that such consequences are unavoidable. Maybe not at every party, but one is enough.

In Bowers’ case, the causal connection is clearer that usual. Bowers parroted talking points not merely of the alt-right, which blames Jews for multiculturalism, but also of the ‘soft right’ like Fox News, which has ceaselessly repeated lies that dangerous “Middle Easterners” are among the current caravan of refugees; that ‘illegal’ immigrants are disproportionately criminals (in fact, the crime rate among undocumented people is lower than that of citizens); that immigration is thus an existential danger to America.

[...]

If you think about it, how could someone like Robert Bowers not commit a terrorist act? He’s been marinating in a stew of anti-Semitism, nativism, nationalism, and above all, rage. If not Bowers, then it would have been someone else.

[...]

Trump supporters can no longer claim that the alt-right’s anti-Semitism is some marginal, harmless phenomenon. They can no longer separate it from acceptable (to them) forms of nationalism, nativism, or populism. It is a package deal; Trump supporters can’t condone hate against one group but not others. To support Trump is to support an environment in which more Robert Bowerses are inevitable.

That goes for Fox News, too, which has served as the administration’s nationalist mouthpiece these past two years. And for all those right-wing pundits who have spread conspiracy theories for years, including, most recently, the claim that the 13 letter-bombs sent to prominent American liberals were a “false flag” engineered by liberals themselves. "

 

[Greenman]

I need to consider that opinion for a while, it's something I hadn't thought about in the terms presented. The one issue I see with it is which direction you follow the path. Is it confrontational speech we should be looking at, or our failure to treat the mentally ill? Is it both? If the mentally ill were properly cared for, or even institutionalized, the rest of the problem goes away. Whereas if we criminalize harsh language or "hate speech", we still have people wandering around that are fully capable of committing violence.
It also gives a layer of insulation to those that decide to kill because of their bent minds and hate. I don't like that at all. No one is forced to pull the trigger, no right minded person thinks random killing is a solution to any problem.
The more I think about it the more I reject the shared guilt concept.

 

[cytg111]

I need to consider that opinion for a while, it's something I hadn't thought about in the terms presented. The one issue I see with it is which direction you follow the path. Is it confrontational speech we should be looking at, or our failure to treat the mentally ill? Is it both? If the mentally ill were properly cared for, or even institutionalized, the rest of the problem goes away. Whereas if we criminalize harsh language or "hate speech", we still have people wandering around that are fully capable of committing violence.
It also gives a layer of insulation to those that decide to kill because of their bent minds and hate. I don't like that at all. No one is forced to pull the trigger, no right minded person thinks random killing is a solution to any problem.
The more I think about it the more I reject the shared guilt concept.

Its not about sharing the guilt, as in 50 to and 50 to you.
Whoever commits the crime does the time.
What it means is the criminal gets the usual 100 it just means that he has a co conspirator, in this case Fox .. so fox gets a point too .. that shit adds up quick though

 

[Perknose]

The more I think about it the more I reject the shared guilt concept.

Of course you do!

And as I've said in part to you before, I believe you lack the personal insight to see why you come to the conclusions you so regularly come to here, or why when multiple posters lay out obvious logical conclusions to you, step by painful step and exquisitely detailed, you somehow fail to grasp them . . . repeatedly!

The latter instances make you look stupid, but you're not.

I believe you wish to see yourself as calmly and objectively considering each issue, with zero political bias. But the stubborn blindness and the wildly illogical gyrations you regularly go through in order to justify the stances you arrive at are blindingly obvious to most of us, and they do not reflect well on you.

Your biases run so deep that you can't even admit them to yourself, because you would then have to admit that you are not the person you so strongly believe you are.

You're not dishonest. You don't lie to us. But you do "lie" to yourself.

Elephant in the room? "The more I think about it," you would say, there's no elephant in the room.

 

[Jhhnn]

I need to consider that opinion for a while, it's something I hadn't thought about in the terms presented. The one issue I see with it is which direction you follow the path. Is it confrontational speech we should be looking at, or our failure to treat the mentally ill? Is it both? If the mentally ill were properly cared for, or even institutionalized, the rest of the problem goes away. Whereas if we criminalize harsh language or "hate speech", we still have people wandering around that are fully capable of committing violence.
It also gives a layer of insulation to those that decide to kill because of their bent minds and hate. I don't like that at all. No one is forced to pull the trigger, no right minded person thinks random killing is a solution to any problem.
The more I think about it the more I reject the shared guilt concept.

You're whatabouting the shit out of it, huh? Trump's rhetoric feeds this stuff. If pushing random crazies over the edge is part of what it takes to win then that's what he'll do. Because that's all that matters- winning.

It's what the GOP has been doing since Gingrich if a bit more softly. A little crazier & a little crazier all the time until some delusional bastard loses it. They'll denounce him, of course, then go back to more of the same, relentlessly. The collateral damage is obviously acceptable. When it's not Jews, it's Muslims & Mexicans. When it's not them it's big city liberals & blacks. Ravings like those of Sayoc & Bowers are pretty mundane in the nether reaches of the right fringe internet & social media. People have a right to be crazy, I suppose, so long as they don't hurt anybody. OTOH, our leaders have an obligation to not make that worse, which brings us back around to Trump doesn't give a flying fuck about that.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Remember Jerod Lee Loughner, who crippled Representative Gifford with his handgun and special clips?

Sarah Palin was backpedaling like crazy when the media showed her web posts of rifle-scope cross-hairs over Tucson and Gifford, as I recall. The Right wing media was also backpedaling, with assertions that "Republicans aren't assassins, because Oswald was a Communist."

Loughner was first determined incompetent to stand trial with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. That determination was later overturned. Either way, he's a poster child for "stochastic terrorism."

Palin spent six years trying to get her college degree in journalism, IIRC. In all that time, she never seemed to have learned that "words matter." Or, in her case, that graphic depictions and suggestions matter.

They figure they're only speaking to their Base -- the pitchfork and torches crowd. But they are speaking to a statistical distribution of some whose sanity is questionable, even if nobody paid attention to it.

 

[Indus]

Kinda reminds of this:

Except the "experiment" is on humans!

 

[Paratus]

One thought I had with this stochastic terrorism angle is there’s probably a credible chance someone more capable than the MAGABomber will take a shot at Obama or Clinton.

The secret service protects both past presidents as well as Trump. In this hypothetical if someone takes a shot at Obama or Clinton it’s going to be the secret service who takes a bullet.

So what does the secret service do if their agents get shot protecting one principle whose being targeted because of what the other principle said and did?

 

[zerocool84]

One thought I had with this stochastic terrorism angle is there’s probably a credible chance someone more capable than the MAGABomber will take a shot at Obama or Clinton.

The secret service protects both past presidents as well as Trump. In this hypothetical if someone takes a shot at Obama or Clinton it’s going to be the secret service who takes a bullet.

So what does the secret service do if their agents get shot protecting one principle whose being targeted because of what the other principle said and did?

It's obvious that it's not their job to care about who started it, it's their job to protect Presidents no matter.

 

[Paratus]

It's obvious that it's not their job to care about who started it, it's their job to protect Presidents no matter.

Sure. But they are also human and the heads of the secret service have a duty to protect their agents as well. Usually by identifying and mitigating threats before they occur. Except of course the basis for the threat is coming from someone hey are sworn to protect.

It’s like pissing off your surgeon. He’s duty bound to treat you but you’re an idiot if you do it and don’t be suprised if you end up with complications.

 

[WHAMPOM]

I've seen this term -- stochastic terrorism -- referenced by a least one other poster here. It gets to the heart of why and how Trump and his rhetoric has given cover and impetus to multiple political assassination attempts and the cowardly and indescribably hateful wholesale slaughter of innocents at worship, just in this last week.

Written by a rabbi:

"It is beyond obvious that Trump, Fox News, and the “soft” alt-right are guilty of what has been called “stochastic terrorism.” While they are not legally responsible for any individual particular terrorist act, including the slaughter in Pittsburgh, they have, over the past several years, created the environment in which “lone wolves” like Robert Bowers inevitably commit horrific acts.

In the case of stochastic terrorism, those responsible for it may still condemn each individual act of violence. They may sincerely be disgusted by it. But without their acts, it would not have happened. They are responsible.

By way of analogy, stochastic terrorists are like teenagers who put grain alcohol in a punch bowl. They may not be legally responsible when a bunch of kids get drunk, and one gets behind the wheel and kills someone in an accident. But any ethical human being knows that such consequences are unavoidable. Maybe not at every party, but one is enough.

In Bowers’ case, the causal connection is clearer that usual. Bowers parroted talking points not merely of the alt-right, which blames Jews for multiculturalism, but also of the ‘soft right’ like Fox News, which has ceaselessly repeated lies that dangerous “Middle Easterners” are among the current caravan of refugees; that ‘illegal’ immigrants are disproportionately criminals (in fact, the crime rate among undocumented people is lower than that of citizens); that immigration is thus an existential danger to America.

[...]

If you think about it, how could someone like Robert Bowers not commit a terrorist act? He’s been marinating in a stew of anti-Semitism, nativism, nationalism, and above all, rage. If not Bowers, then it would have been someone else.

[...]

Trump supporters can no longer claim that the alt-right’s anti-Semitism is some marginal, harmless phenomenon. They can no longer separate it from acceptable (to them) forms of nationalism, nativism, or populism. It is a package deal; Trump supporters can’t condone hate against one group but not others. To support Trump is to support an environment in which more Robert Bowerses are inevitable.

That goes for Fox News, too, which has served as the administration’s nationalist mouthpiece these past two years. And for all those right-wing pundits who have spread conspiracy theories for years, including, most recently, the claim that the 13 letter-bombs sent to prominent American liberals were a “false flag” engineered by liberals themselves. "

And here I thought the condemnation of criminal acts by the Right was just crocodile tears. Glad you set me straight!

 

[Jaskalas]

Written by a rabbi:

"It is beyond obvious that Trump, Fox News, and the “soft” alt-right are guilty of what has been called “stochastic terrorism.” While they are not legally responsible for any individual particular terrorist act, including the slaughter in Pittsburgh, they have, over the past several years, created the environment in which “lone wolves” like Robert Bowers inevitably commit horrific acts.

1: Horrific acts existed before 2016.
2: They have all sorts of motives, particularly for the crazy or deranged.

In the case of stochastic terrorism, those responsible for it may still condemn each individual act of violence. They may sincerely be disgusted by it. But without their acts, it would not have happened. They are responsible.

3: Oh, collective guilt and punishment is it? Your advocacy today, now mirrors my former thoughts on Islamic Terrorism?

 

[ecogen]

The more I think about it the more I reject the shared guilt concept.

Yeah, it's not like we have a ton of historic examples of propaganda leading to violence, wars etc. Fuck me, you're an ignorant one.

 

[pmv]

I need to consider that opinion for a while, it's something I hadn't thought about in the terms presented. The one issue I see with it is which direction you follow the path. Is it confrontational speech we should be looking at, or our failure to treat the mentally ill? Is it both? If the mentally ill were properly cared for, or even institutionalized, the rest of the problem goes away. Whereas if we criminalize harsh language or "hate speech", we still have people wandering around that are fully capable of committing violence.
It also gives a layer of insulation to those that decide to kill because of their bent minds and hate. I don't like that at all. No one is forced to pull the trigger, no right minded person thinks random killing is a solution to any problem.
The more I think about it the more I reject the shared guilt concept.

I don't think the emphasis on 'the mentally ill' leads anywhere. You are never going to identify or define that group with any degree of precision (in my opinion it's an inherently subjective category - mental ill health is not a simple intrinsic property of the individual, it's a quality of an interaraction, it almost always involves the wider society).

And 'institutionalising' them, even assuming you could actually define who they are and identify them, is likely to involve a violation of the rights of the majority who are not going to be dangerous (while neglecting all those who fall outside the definition who in fact will go on to be violent). Finally, as we saw when we had institutions for those deemed mentally-ill, it doesn't stop the violence - in those days those so incarcerated killed and injured their fellow inmates in those institutions (in substantial numbers).

It's a non-starter, which makes it hard not to see the emphasis on it as bad faith.

What I would admit is that it's hard to know how much the relation between 'confrontational speech' and violent actions is one of causation as opposed to correlation. i.e. that both become more common at the same time because the same political, social and economic issues drive both. If that is the case then suppressing the speech may do something but not do as much as one might hope to reduce the frequency of the acts.

 

[compcons]

I need to consider that opinion for a while, it's something I hadn't thought about in the terms presented. The one issue I see with it is which direction you follow the path. Is it confrontational speech we should be looking at, or our failure to treat the mentally ill? Is it both? If the mentally ill were properly cared for, or even institutionalized, the rest of the problem goes away. Whereas if we criminalize harsh language or "hate speech", we still have people wandering around that are fully capable of committing violence.
It also gives a layer of insulation to those that decide to kill because of their bent minds and hate. I don't like that at all. No one is forced to pull the trigger, no right minded person thinks random killing is a solution to any problem.
The more I think about it the more I reject the shared guilt concept.

So options:
A)Spend millions of dollars training gaggles of psychologists and psychiatrists to evaluate patients because we know we don't have enough mental health professionals for any type of wide spread screenings. Spend millions more designing and building facilities to care for/treat huge number of individuals. Spend millions figuring out how to find crazy people who will go over the edge when pushed too far by a cult leader without violating the rights of sane people.

Or

B) have a leader (and political party) who does not stoke the flames of discontent with divisive and hateful rhetoric for their own gain.

So many options...

 

[Moonbeam]

I need to consider that opinion for a while, it's something I hadn't thought about in the terms presented. The one issue I see with it is which direction you follow the path. Is it confrontational speech we should be looking at, or our failure to treat the mentally ill? Is it both? If the mentally ill were properly cared for, or even institutionalized, the rest of the problem goes away. Whereas if we criminalize harsh language or "hate speech", we still have people wandering around that are fully capable of committing violence.
It also gives a layer of insulation to those that decide to kill because of their bent minds and hate. I don't like that at all. No one is forced to pull the trigger, no right minded person thinks random killing is a solution to any problem.
The more I think about it the more I reject the shared guilt concept.

As I have suggested, what you really reject, in my opinion, is any external fact that would, if accepted as fact, cause you to feel the guilt you feel and do not know you feel. This is why you focus on the concept of guilt rather than stochastic cause and effect.

 

[Greenman]

Of course you do!

And as I've said in part to you before, I believe you lack the personal insight to see why you come to the conclusions you so regularly come to here, or why when multiple posters lay out obvious logical conclusions to you, step by painful step and exquisitely detailed, you somehow fail to grasp them . . . repeatedly!

The latter instances make you look stupid, but you're not.

I believe you wish to see yourself as calmly and objectively considering each issue, with zero political bias. But the stubborn blindness and the wildly illogical gyrations you regularly go through in order to justify the stances you arrive at are blindingly obvious to most of us, and they do not reflect well on you.

Your biases run so deep that you can't even admit them to yourself, because you would then have to admit that you are not the person you so strongly believe you are.

You're not dishonest. You don't lie to us. But you do "lie" to yourself.

Elephant in the room? "The more I think about it," you would say, there's no elephant in the room.

All of the "exquisitely detailed" responses are opinion, just like mine. And the vast majority will of course align against anything that can be used to cast a shadow on Trump. This is a very progressive forum, and a mildly hostel one. Those things are a given.
On the topic at hand, certainly the words of our leaders set a "tone" for the nation, and certainly they can incite violence, especially when dealing with large crowds. Crowds are stupid, as the number of people increases the average IQ decreases. Social media allows us to have a scattered crowd mentality, an echo chamber of whatever it is we want to believe. None of that absolves anyone of personal responsibility to any degree.
The fellow that mailed out a bunch of dud bombs was going to do something stupid with or without Trump. The fellow that murdered those people in the synagogue sure as hell wasn't listening to Trump.
Lets take it a step further down Perk, lets have a look at our little piece of society right here. How come personal insults and name calling are allowed here? Tell me why hostility is allowed here. Who set that tone, who made the decision that those things are acceptable? Doesn't it always start at the top? Was it Anand that decided they were acceptable?

You accuse me of bias, you say I device myself because I don't agree with you're opinion. My response is to look at the community you created, at what is accepted and what is rejected. Actions speak far louder than words.




You have an issue with the way the forums are moderated?
Complain in MD not in the thread.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[ecogen]

All of the "exquisitely detailed" responses are opinion, just like mine. And the vast majority will of course align against anything that can be used to cast a shadow on Trump. This is a very progressive forum, and a mildly hostel one. Those things are a given.
On the topic at hand, certainly the words of our leaders set a "tone" for the nation, and certainly they can incite violence, especially when dealing with large crowds. Crowds are stupid, as the number of people increases the average IQ decreases. Social media allows us to have a scattered crowd mentality, an echo chamber of whatever it is we want to believe. None of that absolves anyone of personal responsibility to any degree.
The fellow that mailed out a bunch of dud bombs was going to do something stupid with or without Trump. The fellow that murdered those people in the synagogue sure as hell wasn't listening to Trump.
Lets take it a step further down Perk, lets have a look at our little piece of society right here. How come personal insults and name calling are allowed here? Tell me why hostility is allowed here. Who set that tone, who made the decision that those things are acceptable? Doesn't it always start at the top? Was it Anand that decided they were acceptable?

You accuse me of bias, you say I device myself because I don't agree with you're opinion. My response is to look at the community you created, at what is accepted and what is rejected. Actions speak far louder than words.

Oh pulling the poor persecuted victim card, classy.

Listen asshole, I'm sure most of the posters here have given your dumb ass, taj, uglysheep etc plenty of chances for reasonable discussion. If you continuously try to argue against reality do we have the obligation to keep banging our heads against a brick wall? No, we're just gonna give up trying to argue reasonably and just ridicule you or insult you for being idiots.

Fuck your feelings.

 

[Moonbeam]

All of the "exquisitely detailed" responses are opinion, just like mine. And the vast majority will of course align against anything that can be used to cast a shadow on Trump. This is a very progressive forum, and a mildly hostel one. Those things are a given.
On the topic at hand, certainly the words of our leaders set a "tone" for the nation, and certainly they can incite violence, especially when dealing with large crowds. Crowds are stupid, as the number of people increases the average IQ decreases. Social media allows us to have a scattered crowd mentality, an echo chamber of whatever it is we want to believe. None of that absolves anyone of personal responsibility to any degree.
The fellow that mailed out a bunch of dud bombs was going to do something stupid with or without Trump. The fellow that murdered those people in the synagogue sure as hell wasn't listening to Trump.
Lets take it a step further down Perk, lets have a look at our little piece of society right here. How come personal insults and name calling are allowed here? Tell me why hostility is allowed here. Who set that tone, who made the decision that those things are acceptable? Doesn't it always start at the top? Was it Anand that decided they were acceptable?

You accuse me of bias, you say I device myself because I don't agree with you're opinion. My response is to look at the community you created, at what is accepted and what is rejected. Actions speak far louder than words.

As I recall, that was voted for by the membership here and with some hesitancy by management. Also, I think few believe that all opinions are valued equally or should be.

 

[Greenman]

Oh pulling the poor persecuted victim card, classy.

Listen asshole, I'm sure most of the posters here have given your dumb ass, taj, uglysheep etc plenty of chances for reasonable discussion. If you continuously try to argue against reality do we have the obligation to keep banging our heads against a brick wall? No, we're just gonna give up trying to argue reasonably and just ridicule you or insult you for being idiots.

Fuck your feelings.

An absolutely perfect example of what I'm talking about. No content, just anger and hostility. You aren't interested in differing thoughts or opinions, you want nothing more than an echo chamber of you're beliefs. When you don't get that you turn into another keyboard tough guy. Take a look at the topic we're discussing, then ask yourself where your rhetoric fits into it. If you agree with what Perk posted, then you're part of the problem. You can't have it both way's, though I doubt you can understand that.

I've never claimed to be a victim. I come here voluntary despite the fact that the vast majority of opinions here don't align with my own. I read what a lot of you fellows have to say, and sometimes add my own opinions. I don't care if they're popular, I don't care if they get "liked", that's not what I'm looking for. Hard as it might be for you to believe, I actually seek out different ideas and opinions. Once in a while that information changes how I view a differing ideas.

You claim to give me the opportunity to have a "reasonable discussion", yet you respond with profanity and name calling if I don't agree with you. That's not reasonable, that's an emotional response form someone that doesn't want reasonable discussion, you want to be right, you want a coalition of like minded people to agree with you. You want affirmation, not a differing point of view.

 

[ecogen]

An absolutely perfect example of what I'm talking about. No content, just anger and hostility. You aren't interested in differing thoughts or opinions, you want nothing more than an echo chamber of you're beliefs. When you don't get that you turn into another keyboard tough guy. Take a look at the topic we're discussing, then ask yourself where your rhetoric fits into it. If you agree with what Perk posted, then you're part of the problem. You can't have it both way's, though I doubt you can understand that.

The content is there when I'm discussing with posters that are worth discussing with. You've proven you're not one of them. I'm sure this will feed your victim complex and you'll cry again about me attacking people I disagree with. That's fine, I couldn't care less.

I've never claimed to be a victim. I come here voluntary despite the fact that the vast majority of opinions here don't align with my own. I read what a lot of you fellows have to say, and sometimes add my own opinions. I don't care if they're popular, I don't care if they get "liked", that's not what I'm looking for. Hard as it might be for you to believe, I actually seek out different ideas and opinions. Once in a while that information changes how I view a differing ideas.

Save it, the entirety of your post is you crying about mean people hurting your feefees.

You claim to give me the opportunity to have a "reasonable discussion", yet you respond with profanity and name calling if I don't agree with you. That's not reasonable, that's an emotional response form someone that doesn't want reasonable discussion, you want to be right, you want a coalition of like minded people to agree with you. You want affirmation, not a differing point of view.

No, your reading comprehension fails you again. Surprising, I know.
What I actually claimed is to have given you the opportunity to have a reasonable discussion in the past, an opportunity which you proceeded to squander. Same goes to the rest of the retard brigade. I don't see why I, or any other poster for that matter, should keep wasting time trying to convince flat earthers that the earth is, in fact, not flat. We have better things to do.

 

[Jhhnn]

An absolutely perfect example of what I'm talking about. No content, just anger and hostility. You aren't interested in differing thoughts or opinions, you want nothing more than an echo chamber of you're beliefs. When you don't get that you turn into another keyboard tough guy. Take a look at the topic we're discussing, then ask yourself where your rhetoric fits into it. If you agree with what Perk posted, then you're part of the problem. You can't have it both way's, though I doubt you can understand that.

I've never claimed to be a victim. I come here voluntary despite the fact that the vast majority of opinions here don't align with my own. I read what a lot of you fellows have to say, and sometimes add my own opinions. I don't care if they're popular, I don't care if they get "liked", that's not what I'm looking for. Hard as it might be for you to believe, I actually seek out different ideas and opinions. Once in a while that information changes how I view a differing ideas.

You claim to give me the opportunity to have a "reasonable discussion", yet you respond with profanity and name calling if I don't agree with you. That's not reasonable, that's an emotional response form someone that doesn't want reasonable discussion, you want to be right, you want a coalition of like minded people to agree with you. You want affirmation, not a differing point of view.

While I disagree with ecogen's language & tone, making it about the forum rather than the topic is avoidance on your part.

When CNN received multiple mail bombs from a Trump inspired nutbar, Trump immediately doubled & tripled down on vilification of CNN as the enemy of the people. WTF does he think he's doing other than promoting more seemingly random violence against CNN? You tell me.

 

[Jaskalas]

*** your feelings.

Is that who you are? You see Trump, and rush towards a mirror hoping to continue seeing him in your own reflection?

Do you want eye for an eye, til the world goes blind - or are you just truly that ignorant?

 

[ecogen]

Is that who you are? You see Trump, and rush towards a mirror hoping to continue seeing him in your own reflection?

No, I just don't enjoy pandering to idiots and having pointless debates on the internet with people who are either trolling or too thick to accept they're wrong about something.

I also find someone being disingenuous and propagating lies 100 times more insulting than using foul language, that's just me though. Maybe my priorities are all wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

No, I just don't enjoy pandering to idiots and having pointless debates on the internet with people who are either trolling or too thick to accept they're wrong about something.

I also find someone being disingenuous and propagating lies 100 times more insulting than using foul language, that's just me though. Maybe my priorities are all wrong.

Stay calm & don't let 'em get to you. It's what they want.