No, being as that individual citizens are the ultimate authority here, it is anything but civilised to presume a body which can grant permission.
Just the same, when people do organize such events, they still invite the public. The public who attend have no obligation to the agenda of the organizers, nor favor of their views. An assembly which claims to commemorate a certain event has no monopoly on what that events significance should be, nor vetting attendees upon this basis.
Okay, but the missing piece is that the event, the Sandy Hook shooting, did happen, for real. The guy screaming it didnât happen may be exercising his right to free speech, but heâs also flat-out wrong.
Not someone proffering a different opinion. Wrong. Heâs saying something didnât happen when it did.
Now, if someone wants to argue about how the commeration is executed (for instance, personally it drives me nuts when mass shooting victims are called âherosâ â I agree they should be accorded great empathy and respect, but itâs the wrong word), then okay. There are times and places which are better or worse for those kinds of arguments, but okay. But if someone thinks shouting loud enough will refute the basic facts⌠meh. It gets back to the difference between free speech and forced listening.
Many who assume conspiracy about the Sandy Hook shootings donât dispute that people were shot, they dispute why they were shot, which is an area where tangible evidence is often lacking. I know there are some who assume that it was a âmoon landingâ style bit of theatre, but many seem to insist that the killings were real - and a deliberate false-flag operation. Saying that any violent spectacle is false-flag is bound to be contentious, especially when the group investigating is who they think perpetrated it.
What you describe is the danger that consensus poses to reason. Itâs certainly preferable to act from evidence, but do you actually have any? Most people seem to assume that media allow them to act upon evidence vicariously, through other peopleâs experience. But without doing their own investigations, and/or their own science, most individuals have little evidence of anything. Only a web of mutually-enforced belief.
In any case, I still think that arresting a person for believing something counter-factual is in exceedingly bad form. Why not invite them up to the mic to make a fool of themselves? Basically, because they were emotionally insecure, lacking in strength of their own convictions. Like anybody else who resorts to censorship instead of the joy of debate.
I said âif YOU donât like the law in your local areaâ. Youâve said repeatedly you think itâs wrong that the commemoration had legal permit to occur but the person standing directly in front and screaming over the speaker did not have the same right to disrupt the event. So do something about it, instead of complaining on the internet. Isnât that your advice to everyone else, on any other subject?
Did I say that I was complaining? The arrest was relevant to this topic, and some might not have been aware of it.
Why do people assume that their input was disruptive? Is the public at speeches, parades, rallies, etc obliged to be quiet? Organizers and participants often prefer to have people worked up! The problem is that they donât get to choose what kind of sentiment results from their deliberate attempts to manipulate peopleâs sympathies. Saying that one person speaking up is disruptive while others arenât is selective enforcement, and I donât respect this. If they require quiet, they could insist upon everybody sitting quietly with their hands folded - but instead they are happy to encourage what they perceive as being the right kind of outbursts.
If they donât want to engage the public - then they shouldnât be in public.
No, you misunderstand me. I am doing something, I am communicating and organizing. Rather than petitioning some other people with mythical âpowersâ to fix it for me. Thatâs something that communications media are useful for.
I disagree with that. Thereâs a reason why the colloquialism âX has the micâ exists, even when a physical mic is not being used. Discourse, even public discourse, isnât about who can scream the loudest or longest. There are rules of etiquette at play.
The behavior of these âtruthersâ shows no regard or compassion for the families of the dead children. Which implies either
A) They believe that dozens of parents took an active role in a conspiracy to murder their own children, or
B) They donât have the least amount of regard for the feelings of innocent parents whose children were slaughtered.
Either way, screw those assholes.
I agree. But the poor etiquette is that events in public are closed-mic affairs. There is no real meatspace open debate anywhere, which is precisely what town commons exist for.
Seems to me if the guy got arrested for screaming at a crowd, heâs already exercised his right to free speech. Censorship would have been if he never got to scream at all.
And if the point was to commerate the victims, whether it was a false flag or whatever doesnât matter to the proceedings. Again, time and place matter for arguments.
My suspicion is that many of the people involved will simultaneously argue that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation and that no-one was shot at all (everything staged with a troupe of Crisis Actors).
Once you have slipped the surly bonds of rationality, there is nothing to hold you back.
To elaborate on this â hereâs a representative twitstream:
https://twitter.com/baskett_case
The authro is primarily a UK-based Chronic Lyme Disease career hypochondriac, but she also provides GcMAF cancer scamming, Chemtrails, Hash Oil as the other Pharma-suppressed panacea, the Alternative Doctor Death-List, Paris Shootings False Flag, Secret-Muslim Gun-grabber Obama, and links to other members of the Truther network and their Sandy-Hook Investigative YouTubers.
The only media source they accept as legitimate is Putinâs Pravda, the RT News.
I started following these folks (the âcrisis actorâ âfalse flagâ etc. crowd) mostly for the LOLZ several years ago. There are website and message boards and it can be a fun read. But when Sandy Hook happened my own son was 5 and literally attending kindergarten when the news came out and that was the first time it it occurred to me how freaking PAINFUL and INFURIATING it would be if your own child was killed and there were people out there claiming he was a âsimâ or made up, or an actor, or hadnât really died or you yourself were a liar or a shil for some conspiracy. I wondered if these people were really, at a basic level, just in a kind of denial, thinking, out of compassion, that no, of course, nobody walked into a school and gunned down a lot of little kids, there are no tiny corpses, it never happened. I could be more understanding if it was just that.
But they do troll people, horribly. There is some stuff out there mocking the victims of the Boston Marathon that is just horrible. Other folks on the internet can protect Noahâs honor too by shouting these folks down and not giving them that knee-jerk âletâs agree to disagreeâ attitude that reasonable people like to maintain. To say that this little boy didnât die, that his father doesnât grieve and that it is all a big hoax is an immense cruelty to his family and should be treated as such.
Iâm not familiar with the SH theory that people were shot, just not by Adam Lanza. I do admit I have not gone wading in the cesspool of SH truthers.
The general theory Iâve heard is that the whole thing was faked, nobody really died (at least, not of a mass shooting⌠presumably those kids existed but were taken away by the Men In Black to be disappeared?). And that the grieving family members are professional Crisis Actors who regularly appear as victims in various tragedies like staged mass shootings.
Because it totally makes sense that if youâre going to the trouble of staging a mass shooting, with all the complexities that would involve, you would totally forget the part where you should use different âcrisis actorsâ so that the conspiracy wonât be easily blown wide open by someone simply finding video of the same person claiming to be a victimâs surviving family member or friend at Newtown, Tucson, Aurora, and San Bernadino.
And how is the conspiracy to stage mass shootings in order to grab all the guns going? Last I heard⌠not one single gun grabbed. We canât even stop people on the no-fly list from buying guns. Obama sucks as a dictator and conspiracy mastermind. Thatâs why I am voting Hillary.
Iâve had markedly similar results when discussing religion. Not really here nor there - that part of your comment just resonated.
No?
Sure, give the Triangle Shirtwaist truthers something else to latch onto.
Itâs not âmind control,â itâs just a memory wipe.
You are describing the exact opposite of civilization.
You underestimate these people. They join the groups of people who believe that the planes seen crashing into the WTC towers were holograms, that the government is using aircraft to control our minds with chemtrails, but this can be counteracted with a spray bottle of vinegar. There are groups that actually believe the US government is secretly controlled by reptiles, from inside the hollow earth. Just as an example, I picked a historical event at random, and found out there is, in fact, a group of Hindenburg truthers. More than one, actually. I would like to think of myself as too rational to fall for any such nonsense. But we are each of us a product of our own experiences, emotions, and prejudices.
Perhaps you are cynical. How civilized the results are depends upon what they do. The double-bind is that when people arenât recognized as having autonomy, there is no way for them to organize into collectives. Thatâs why post-Enlightenment states supposedly rely upon the consent of the governed. Authority cannot be taken, only given.
