4 ms·

If you threaten a US senator, and you have stockpiled this many weapons, I think you really should have seen this one coming.

by dr42 14y ago

Confusion 14y ago
He did not threaten any senator. He made a joke and argues it fits in the context of a discussion running at the time. The joke was, with respect to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords: 1 down, 534 to go. It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot 'indiscriminately'. Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone. Now you can argue this is in bad taste or, if you feel it was meant seriously, you can argue it is a reprehensible opinion, but there is no reason to arrest someone over this. If we start doing that, we can rest half the worlds population. I've made worse jokes in my life, where it was firmly obvious from the context, tone and body language that I could not possible be serious. Making jokes is a way of dealing with incomprehensible tragedies. Pure text is an unfortunate medium for such jokes, because it lacks tone and body language. People that know you may interpret it correctly; others may interpret it otherwise. Especially if taken from its narrative context. I would not like to be arrested over some joke overheard by a passing policeman who didn't understand the context and neither do I even remotely understand or accept this guy being arrested.
- carbocation 14y ago
  That lacks one of the key elements of a joke: humor. I'd need to see the rest of the conversation to understand if somehow the context makes it funny, but out of context it looks quite serious.
  - cglace 14y ago
    I thought it was funny.
  - Confusion 14y ago
    The following sequence is generally considered to be humorous and is used by comedians often and to great effect: * something generally considered 'bad' happens or is relayed * the comedian remarks that that thing should not have happened * then unexpectedly follows up with something that would actually make it worse, placing the previous remark in a new light * all this while it is obvious, from his tone and body language, that he actually truly strongly disapproves of the original 'bad' thing The sequence usually contains toying with expectations, seemingly contradicting yourself, obvious sarcasm and generally putting the audience on the wrong foot by making ludicrous statements you couldn't possibly be serious about.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Being funny is a poor quality to require of something in order to consider it a joke. Firstly, because it is subjective, secondly because unfunny jokes are still considered jokes (why did the chicken cross the road...)
tjic 14y ago
> If you threaten a US senator Absolutely agreed. If some nut case puts up a website with the home address of someone, rants about a bounty on their head, etc., by all means, have an investigation and perhaps charges. ...but there's a difference between saying "This SOPA bill is insane. Rope. Lampposts." and driving to a person's house with a noose in the back seat.
- nupark2 14y ago
  ... and there you go doing it again. There's not much room to joke about assassination and lynchings in a country that has a very recent history of assassinations and lynchings. It's in bad taste, it can incite violence, and given your statements here, as well as those you've made elsewhere, I'm unsurprised that the law came down on you.
  - tjic 14y ago
    > ... and there you go doing it again. No, there YOU go doing it again. That comment was in a long thread of context, and you willfully ignored that. The comment was also non-actionable and was clearly political hyperbole. > There's not much room to joke about assassination and lynchings in a country that has a very recent history of assassinations and lynchings. Sure there is. It's little thing called "the first amendment". Perhaps you've heard of it? Read it closely. It makes no reference to "...unless there were lynchings in the last century".
    - nupark2 14y ago
      > No, there YOU go doing it again. That comment was in a long thread of context, and you willfully ignored that. The comment was also non-actionable and was clearly political hyperbole. Not really, no. SOPA actually exists, and you joked about hanging its supporters. The only context that would have made it remotely appropriate is neutral one, in which it was clear to any observers that encouraging the hanging of SOPA supporters (even 'jokingly') was not your position. > It's little thing called "the first amendment". Perhaps you've heard of it? Read it closely. It makes no reference to "...unless there were lynchings in the last century". Then let me rephrase: There's no room to joke about lynching elected representatives (or anyone) in civilized mature discourse. There is also a long history of case law that restricts "fighting words", despite the first amendment. My only take-away from your repeated reference to assassination/lynching is that you're someone who is likely to incite if not participate in violence, and beyond that, you personally decrease the overall quality of rational discourse in US politics. You may not be enough of a nutcase to try to assassinate a politician -- I'm honestly not sure, given your remarks here, and your ownership of the tools to do so -- but your seeming need to joke about assassination contributes to a culture of political violence that may very well incite someone to do what you won't.

If you threaten a US senator, and you have stockpiled this many weapons, I think you really should have seen this one coming.

by dr42 14y ago

If you threaten a US senator, and you have stockpiled this many weapons, I think you really should have seen this one coming.

Confusion 14y ago

He did not threaten any senator. He made a joke and argues it fits in the context of a discussion running at the time. The joke was, with respect to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords: 1 down, 534 to go. It is absolutely, absolutely unacceptable to shoot 'indiscriminately'. Target only politicians and their staff, and leave regular citizens alone. Now you can argue this is in bad taste or, if you feel it was meant seriously, you can argue it is a reprehensible opinion, but there is no reason to arrest someone over this. If we start doing that, we can rest half the worlds population. I've made worse jokes in my life, where it was firmly obvious from the context, tone and body language that I could not possible be serious. Making jokes is a way of dealing with incomprehensible tragedies. Pure text is an unfortunate medium for such jokes, because it lacks tone and body language. People that know you may interpret it correctly; others may interpret it otherwise. Especially if taken from its narrative context. I would not like to be arrested over some joke overheard by a passing policeman who didn't understand the context and neither do I even remotely understand or accept this guy being arrested.

carbocation 14y ago
That lacks one of the key elements of a joke: humor. I'd need to see the rest of the conversation to understand if somehow the context makes it funny, but out of context it looks quite serious.
- cglace 14y ago
  I thought it was funny.
- Confusion 14y ago
  The following sequence is generally considered to be humorous and is used by comedians often and to great effect: * something generally considered 'bad' happens or is relayed * the comedian remarks that that thing should not have happened * then unexpectedly follows up with something that would actually make it worse, placing the previous remark in a new light * all this while it is obvious, from his tone and body language, that he actually truly strongly disapproves of the original 'bad' thing The sequence usually contains toying with expectations, seemingly contradicting yourself, obvious sarcasm and generally putting the audience on the wrong foot by making ludicrous statements you couldn't possibly be serious about.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Being funny is a poor quality to require of something in order to consider it a joke. Firstly, because it is subjective, secondly because unfunny jokes are still considered jokes (why did the chicken cross the road...)

tjic 14y ago

> If you threaten a US senator Absolutely agreed. If some nut case puts up a website with the home address of someone, rants about a bounty on their head, etc., by all means, have an investigation and perhaps charges. ...but there's a difference between saying "This SOPA bill is insane. Rope. Lampposts." and driving to a person's house with a noose in the back seat.

nupark2 14y ago
... and there you go doing it again. There's not much room to joke about assassination and lynchings in a country that has a very recent history of assassinations and lynchings. It's in bad taste, it can incite violence, and given your statements here, as well as those you've made elsewhere, I'm unsurprised that the law came down on you.
- tjic 14y ago
  > ... and there you go doing it again. No, there YOU go doing it again. That comment was in a long thread of context, and you willfully ignored that. The comment was also non-actionable and was clearly political hyperbole. > There's not much room to joke about assassination and lynchings in a country that has a very recent history of assassinations and lynchings. Sure there is. It's little thing called "the first amendment". Perhaps you've heard of it? Read it closely. It makes no reference to "...unless there were lynchings in the last century".
  - nupark2 14y ago
    > No, there YOU go doing it again. That comment was in a long thread of context, and you willfully ignored that. The comment was also non-actionable and was clearly political hyperbole. Not really, no. SOPA actually exists, and you joked about hanging its supporters. The only context that would have made it remotely appropriate is neutral one, in which it was clear to any observers that encouraging the hanging of SOPA supporters (even 'jokingly') was not your position. > It's little thing called "the first amendment". Perhaps you've heard of it? Read it closely. It makes no reference to "...unless there were lynchings in the last century". Then let me rephrase: There's no room to joke about lynching elected representatives (or anyone) in civilized mature discourse. There is also a long history of case law that restricts "fighting words", despite the first amendment. My only take-away from your repeated reference to assassination/lynching is that you're someone who is likely to incite if not participate in violence, and beyond that, you personally decrease the overall quality of rational discourse in US politics. You may not be enough of a nutcase to try to assassinate a politician -- I'm honestly not sure, given your remarks here, and your ownership of the tools to do so -- but your seeming need to joke about assassination contributes to a culture of political violence that may very well incite someone to do what you won't.