++MEEP Proposal: Ban Stochastic Terrorism++

Author: WyIted

Posts

Total: 88
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
This is a simple yay or nay vote on the proposed new addition to the code of conduct. You can find a copy of the policy here https://www.evernote.com/shard/s645/sh/644d1e17-1ef3-3ef5-f968-542592992d8f/oE3TDdHIibb3PsfMvwM5EpSE0FVNCufDv-upv_hudVvOVqFEskfHk3YAdA


This is the current code of conduct despite the site failing to be updated yet; https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/9127-meep-for-sweeping-code-of-conduct-change?page=1

This meep proposes that we add the following definition of stochastic terrorism to the COC:

Stochastic Terrorism: "Stochastic terrorism is targeted political violence that has been instigated by hostile public rhetoric directed at a group or individual. Unlike incitement to terrorism, this is accomplished by using indirect, vague, or coded language that allows the instigator to plausibly disclaim responsibility for the resulting violence.[1] A key element is the use of social media and other distributed forms of communications where the person who carries out the violence has no direct connection to the users of violent rhetoric" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_terrorism

We have had users claim that they hoped Biden and Trump would die. They have made statements pretending like Donald Trump was a terrorist, which regardless of intention could obviously incite some unstable individual to attempt to assassinate the president. The same sort of rhetoric has been used against Biden, but to a lesser degree and should not be tolerated, even if it's a rule only violated by people belonging to a certain ideology.

The Voting will end at 10pm on 7/21/24

Vote a simple yay or nay to the COC's 1st amendment

WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I vote YAY
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 2,076
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
-->
@WyIted
You can find a copy of the policy here
No I can't, the link doesn't work.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,785
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Hasn't Wylted been banned from web sites for posting hate speech?

But preaching violence is only for the people he hates.

Hypocrite.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Savant
fuck I deleted the fucking COC. I have to have a copy somewhere. Hold on
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,620
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@WyIted
If you can’t find your own COC, that’s a you problem 

WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Mharman
Latest update available so far


SO eat it. Now vote so we can ban hate speech against Trump
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
op updated to show policy. I moved all my notes to obsidian so my bad
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,620
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@WyIted
I’m good. I support Trump, but I support the 1st Amendment even more.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Mharman
it's still available even if the policy passes but must be phrased in a way that is not hyperbolic. You did not say a simple yay or nay also
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,620
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@WyIted
Nay
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Vote count

yay 1 (wylted)
Nay 1 (mharman)


Tidycraft
Tidycraft's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 135
0
2
4
Tidycraft's avatar
Tidycraft
0
2
4
In light of your recent act of left wing terrorism, I vote Yay to try to end American terrorism
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Vote count

yay 2 (wylted, tidycraft)
Nay 1 (mharman
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,191
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@WyIted
Gonna have to go Nay For this one. I support free speech on social media unless it is misinformation or is very extreme toxic cyber bullying. As long as no one is actively conspiring to assassinate Trump on this cite, they have freedom to criticize him.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Vote count

yay 2 (wylted, tidycraft)
Nay 2 (mharman, moozer)
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
Stochastic terrorism often involves the use of misinformation and the intent is to provoke violence while maintaining plausible deniability. So you seem to favor the policy but voted against it
Moozer325
Moozer325's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 1,191
3
2
8
Moozer325's avatar
Moozer325
3
2
8
-->
@WyIted
I glanced over that, but your definition also included some other things that I would include in free speech. Willfully spreading misinformation is already banned, right? So if so, I’m still voting Nay.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Moozer325
Willfully spreading misinformation is already banned, right?
Wrong, and that would be a stupid policy if it was banned
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10

I guess if this were to pass, then anyone calling for the death of Kim Jun Un would be banned.  It's a loony idea, but I will vote nay because I believe in free speech absolutism.

Wylted can no longer claim he believes in free speech for people he hates (like myself).  I know he hates me at this point and this thread was made because of me, and I don't really care how much he hates me, but the vote is 3-2 in favor of the nay side.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Vote count

yay 2 (wylted, tidycraft)
Nay 3 (mharman, moozer, theunderdog)
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
They have made statements pretending like Donald Trump was a terrorist, which regardless of intention could obviously incite some unstable individual to attempt to assassinate the president.
Bruh, like 20 people read these threads, max.  There are people here that love and hate our POTUS candidates; nobody on this thread is plausibly going to travel thousands of kilometers to DC or Florida and go out of their way and lose their job to commit an assassination against someone that will probably fail.

This is like a billionaire having $10 taken from him and then him worrying that he will go broke.  Authoritarians are petty and are willing to restrict liberty for a nominal increase to safety.  I believe in liberty and small government and I would assume you do too as someone that at least claims to be libertarian, so the idea that you would vote to ban speech is absurd!
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Nay, violence is inherent in politics because it is inherent in government.

Banning calls for violence or even more vaguely statements that supposedly imply violence should be used would ban any expression of political opinion except "pacifist anarchy"

Of course being allowed to call for violence does not mean all calls for violence are made equal.

Anyone who advocates for assassinations of people with ~50% support in their own country are either hoping for civil war or profoundly stupid. If they hope for civil war they should have a damn good reason to expect things would be better on the other side.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
Vote count

yay 2 (wylted, tidycraft)
Nay 4 (mharman, moozer, theunderdog, adol)

WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Official Vote count

yay 2 (wylted, tidycraft)
Nay 4 (mharman, moozer, theunderdog, adol)

Please ignore any non official vote counts
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 394
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@WyIted
I vote YAY!
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Official Vote count

yay 3 (wylted, tidycraft, Amber)
Nay 4 (mharman, moozer, theunderdog, adol)

Please ignore any non official vote counts
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@WyIted

I vote Nay!
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Yes, Wylted is a hypocrite.

You can stick it to him by voting Nay.
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 5,850
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Official Vote count

yay 3 (wylted, tidycraft, Amber)
Nay 5 (mharman, moozer, theunderdog, adol, FLRW)

Please ignore any non official vote counts