They exist in Canada

21 views
Skip to first unread message

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 6, 2022, 8:48:07 PMAug 6
to
I have known this particular fellow for about 35 years.
In 2014-2015 I had to cut him off because he kept
sending me pro-Trump stuff. He’s almost 80 now and
I thought he might have come to his senses.

I heard his whole family got Covid, so I emailed him
against my better judgment. Holy sweet snapping
fuck! He was in and out of the hospital and almost died from the stuff.
Yet he is WORSE! Agrees Trump is
the real president wishes the mob had hanged
Pence, believes all the MAGA shit, loves Putin, Xi
and that little cocksucker in North Korea, wants
Maxime Bernier to be PM, and the list goes on.

I won’t be contacting that nut again. You’d think
they would a near-death experience for him and his
wife would have sunk in. I guess you can’t change
“stupid.”

--
HRM Resident

lucretia

unread,
Aug 6, 2022, 9:36:24 PMAug 6
to
Sympathies!

James Warren

unread,
Aug 6, 2022, 10:29:05 PMAug 6
to
Lol. It's hard wired. :)

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 6:17:33 AMAug 7
to
James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Lol. It's hard wired. :)
>

Yeah. He’s the only real “hard core” racist and nut
that I know/knew who lives in those scary ultra hard
right echo chambers. It’s not my problem to “fix.”

There are a few anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers
I can get along with by mutual agreement to not
discuss it. But this is the only person I am aware of
who lives on pure hate for ideological reasons.

They are dangerous!

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 8:01:14 AMAug 7
to
They are. It is also possible that such people
have a lesion in the hypothalamus. Such lesions
sometimes cause a perpetual state of anger and hate.

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 9:21:16 AMAug 7
to
It must be contagious because there seems to be
a lot of it going around in North America, and for
that matter worldwide.

My theory is it's the ease at which the uneducated
and ideologically driven can access social media. The
Internet used to be somewhat hard to use in the 80s and
90s. Now a monkey can get on Twitter, Facebook, etc. and
parts of the "dark web" whic I hear exist, but never
tried to access.

Unlike other communication technologies, there seem
be no laws governing the use of the Internet. To wit: some
creep in The Netherlands badgered that poor 15-year old
teen woman in BC until she killed herself in 2012. Yes,
10 years later he was caught/convicted, but had he been
doing it via snail mail pre-Y2K, he'd have been a lot
easier to stop before it got out of hand.

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 10:02:11 AMAug 7
to
On 2022-08-07 10:21 AM, HRM Resident wrote:
> On 2022-08-07 9:01 a.m., James Warren wrote:
>> On 2022-08-07 7:17 AM, HRM Resident wrote:
>>> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Lol. It's hard wired. :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>       Yeah.  He’s the only real “hard core” racist and nut
>>> that I know/knew who lives in those scary ultra hard
>>> right echo chambers.  It’s not my problem to “fix.”
>>>
>>>      There are a few anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers
>>> I can get along with by mutual agreement to not
>>> discuss it.  But this is the only person I am aware of
>>> who lives on pure hate for ideological reasons.
>>>
>>>       They are dangerous!
>>>
>>
>> They are. It is also possible that such people
>> have a lesion in the hypothalamus. Such lesions
>> sometimes cause a perpetual state of anger and hate.
>>
>
>     It must be contagious because there seems to be
> a lot of it going around in North America, and for
> that matter worldwide.

The internet unmasks things that were hidden previously.

>
>     My theory is it's the ease at which the uneducated
> and ideologically driven can access social media. The
> Internet used to be somewhat hard to use in the 80s and
> 90s. Now a monkey can get on Twitter, Facebook, etc. and
> parts of the "dark web" whic I hear exist, but never
> tried to access.

The internet and social media are megaphones for loonies.

>
>    Unlike other communication technologies, there seem
> be no laws governing the use of the Internet. To wit: some
> creep in The Netherlands badgered that poor 15-year old
> teen woman in BC until she killed herself in 2012. Yes,
> 10 years later he was caught/convicted, but had he been
> doing it via snail mail pre-Y2K, he'd have been a lot
> easier to stop before it got out of hand.
>

No internet laws are necessary. Existing laws will
suffice if enforced.


HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 12:14:33 PMAug 7
to
On 2022-08-07 11:02 a.m., James Warren wrote:

>
> No internet laws are necessary. Existing laws will
> suffice if enforced.
>

Yes and no. There's no consistency from country
to country. Sure, that Netherlands guy got caught
eventually, but what if he had been in Russia, China,
Japan, or wherever? I would imagine the EU and Canada
have some kind of "catch the creeps on the Internet"
treaty. Is that how they got him? I didn't follow the
details.

Still, freedom of speech laws, kiddie porn laws, and
the like are not consistent worldwide. I can't imagine a
worldwide agreement on everything. Especially in today's
world where "freedom of speech and expression" trumps
almost everything in some countries, and where they will
execute you for saying shit even if you had a mouthful
in others.

The Internet gives people worldwide the ability to
exchange things that are legal in the country of origin
and illegal in the destination country at the speed of
light. How do we deal with that, existing laws
notwithstanding? I can sat "Fuck Xi" here and no one
cares. If I send an email saying that to somebody in
China, do Canadian freedom of speech laws protect me
from retaliation?

We don't have a world government, and with the
rise of populism and nationalism, it's likely to get a
lot worse.

VPNs and high levels of encryption add to the Internet
problem as well.

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 12:56:30 PMAug 7
to
On 2022-08-07 1:14 PM, HRM Resident wrote:
> On 2022-08-07 11:02 a.m., James Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> No internet laws are necessary. Existing laws will
>> suffice if enforced.
>>
>
>     Yes and no. There's no consistency from country
> to country. Sure, that Netherlands guy got caught
> eventually, but what if he had been in Russia, China,
> Japan, or wherever?  I would imagine the EU and Canada
> have some kind of "catch the creeps on the Internet"
> treaty. Is that how they got him? I didn't follow the
> details.

So how would internet laws help in uncooperating countries?

>
>     Still, freedom of speech laws, kiddie porn laws, and
> the like are not consistent worldwide. I can't imagine a
> worldwide agreement on everything. Especially in today's
> world where "freedom of speech and expression" trumps
> almost everything in some countries, and where they will
> execute you for saying shit even if you had a mouthful
> in others.

Again, how will internet laws affect that?

>
>     The Internet gives people worldwide the ability to
> exchange things that are legal in the country of origin
> and illegal in the destination country at the speed of
> light. How do we deal with that, existing laws
> notwithstanding? I can sat "Fuck Xi" here and no one
> cares. If I send an email saying that to somebody in
> China, do Canadian freedom of speech laws protect me
> from retaliation?

How will internet laws change that?

>
>    We don't have a world government, and with the
> rise of populism and nationalism, it's likely to get a
> lot worse.
>
>    VPNs and high levels of encryption add to the Internet
> problem as well.
>

What laws can you suggest that would work in uncooperative
countries?

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 2:17:09 PMAug 7
to
On 2022-08-07 1:56 p.m., James Warren wrote:

>
> What laws can you suggest that would work in uncooperative
> countries?
>

I see. You got some "parrot pills." You asked the same
question 4 times inter-dispersed with my admittedly lengthy
post that answered the question. In one sentence, There are
no "international" laws and none can be enforced that
"uncooperative countries" will follow or enforce.

You seem to think that existing laws are all that are
necessary. Maybe, but I think this "freedom to say and do
whatever you want" has gone too far.

Even in Canada, it has. I see vehicles and lawn signs that
say "F*ck Trudeau." That's a bridge too far, NOT because I
have a particular love for Trudeau. But, he's our PM. I
didn't care for Harper's policies, but I would NEVER (read
that again NEVER) have a sign that said "F*ck Harper" and I
would find one repulsive had they existed pre-2015.

Hate speech is spreading from the USA Republican
extremists too far and wide. We are a better country, and
the Charter be damned, but "freedom of speech/expression"
ought to include some civility, regardless of your ideological
political or religious views. Hate speech makes hate "OK"
and hate leads to violence.

Go ahead and call me a RWA or a LWA. I'm not. I long
for the days when "freedom" was balanced with civility and
decency. Are there no lines we can't cross in 2022? Look
at the hate directed toward minorities, immigrants, people
of non-WASP origin, the LGBTQIA2S+ community, etc. Is it
justified by "freedom?" Is that OK with you?

If it's too hot for you to type very much today, just
answer my previous paragraph.

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 2:56:27 PMAug 7
to
On 2022-08-07 3:17 PM, HRM Resident wrote:
> On 2022-08-07 1:56 p.m., James Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> What laws can you suggest that would work in uncooperative
>> countries?
>>
>
>     I see. You got some "parrot pills."  You asked the same
> question 4 times inter-dispersed with my admittedly lengthy
> post that answered the question.  In one sentence, There are
> no "international" laws and none can be enforced that
> "uncooperative countries" will follow or enforce.
>
>     You seem to think that existing laws are all that are
> necessary.  Maybe, but I think this "freedom to say and do
> whatever you want" has gone too far.

Says who? What can be done about it?

>
>     Even in Canada, it has. I see vehicles and lawn signs that
> say "F*ck Trudeau."  That's a bridge too far, NOT because I
> have a particular love for Trudeau.  But, he's our PM.  I
> didn't care for Harper's policies, but I would NEVER (read
> that again NEVER) have a sign that said "F*ck Harper" and I
> would find one repulsive had they existed pre-2015.

Are you suggesting we use you as a standard for what is
acceptable?

>
>     Hate speech is spreading from the USA Republican
> extremists too far and wide.  We are a better country, and
> the Charter be damned, but "freedom of speech/expression"
> ought to include some civility, regardless of your ideological
> political or religious views.  Hate speech makes hate "OK"
> and hate leads to violence.

Now you want to enforce civility? Good luck with that.

>
>    Go ahead and call me a RWA or a LWA.  I'm not.  I long
> for the days when "freedom" was balanced with civility and
> decency.  Are there no lines we can't cross in 2022?  Look
> at the hate directed toward minorities, immigrants, people
> of non-WASP origin, the LGBTQIA2S+ community, etc. Is it
> justified by "freedom?" Is that OK with you?

Not OK. But the best approach is not making speech illegal
but in rebuttal and refutation. Or failing that just ignore it.
Or complain about it on social media,

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 3:12:15 PMAug 7
to
On 2022-08-07 3:56 p.m., James Warren wrote:

>
> Are you suggesting we use you as a standard for what is
> acceptable?
>
What is the standard? Anything goes? No limits?
Can I drive around with a sign saying you and your wife
run a pedophile ring? You are starting to sound like
a Texan.

>
> Not OK. But the best approach is not making speech illegal
> but in rebuttal and refutation. Or failing that just ignore it.
> Or complain about it on social media,
>

I never said I wanted to make free speech illegal. YOU tell
me what changed post around 2010-2015. Do you think it's better
now? If so, then I guess you want even more hate speech. Give
us a solution. Don't throw up your hands and say there's nothing
that can be done other than fool with social media.

--
HRM Resident

Mike Spencer

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 3:56:42 PMAug 7
to

HRM Resident <hrm...@gmail.com> writes:

> My theory is it's the ease at which the uneducated
> and ideologically driven can access social media. The
> Internet used to be somewhat hard to use in the 80s and
> 90s. Now a monkey can get on Twitter, Facebook, etc. and
> parts of the "dark web" whic I hear exist, but never
> tried to access.

We can slice and dice the details until the cows come home, but
the bottom line is that when social media enables evil people
to communicate en masse with gullible people, starting with
chain emails and culminating with Facebook, the stage is set
for the downfall of democracy.
-- Lauren Weinstein




--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 4:12:38 PMAug 7
to
On 2022-08-07 4:12 PM, HRM Resident wrote:
> On 2022-08-07 3:56 p.m., James Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you suggesting we use you as a standard for what is
>> acceptable?
>>
>     What is the standard?  Anything goes?  No limits?
> Can I drive around with a sign saying you and your wife
> run a pedophile ring?  You are starting to sound like
> a Texan.

You can. But you can be sued for slander (if it is false).

>
>>
>> Not OK. But the best approach is not making speech illegal
>> but in rebuttal and refutation. Or failing that just ignore it.
>> Or complain about it on social media,
>>
>
>     I never said I wanted to make free speech illegal.  YOU tell
> me what changed post around 2010-2015.  Do you think it's better
> now?  If so, then I guess you want even more hate speech.  Give
> us a solution. Don't throw up your hands and say there's nothing
> that can be done other than fool with social media.
>

Rebuttal.

Everything changes. In Canada hate speech is illegal.
In other countries, maybe not.

Are you suggesting the internet be moderated? By who? You?

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 4:15:06 PMAug 7
to
Really? That bad?

Good people can have their say too. It might be when
good people stay silent that danger lurks.


HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 4:52:50 PMAug 7
to
Who defines good? You? The guy who is the subject of this thread
thinks that he’s good. I don’t know who defines good in 2022.

--
HRM Resident

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 4:57:07 PMAug 7
to
James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>
>>     What is the standard?  Anything goes?  No limits?
>> Can I drive around with a sign saying you and your wife
>> run a pedophile ring?  You are starting to sound like
>> a Texan.
>
> You can. But you can be sued for slander (if it is false).

All I have to say is “I am hearing” in front of it, or ask if it’s
true. Run that by your shyster brother! :-)

--
HRM Resident

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 5:04:24 PMAug 7
to
James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>     I never said I wanted to make free speech illegal.  YOU tell
>> me what changed post around 2010-2015.  Do you think it's better
>> now?  If so, then I guess you want even more hate speech.  Give
>> us a solution. Don't throw up your hands and say there's nothing
>> that can be done other than fool with social media.
>>
>
> Rebuttal.
>
> Everything changes. In Canada hate speech is illegal.
> In other countries, maybe not.
>
> Are you suggesting the internet be moderated? By who? You?
>

No. I asked you a question. You just said things change.
Which is code for I have no answer so I’ll flip it around
and make the other guy answer his own question.

Stop dodging. What level of hate speech is illegal in
Canada?

I think you are overheating. Try sticking your head
in a bucket of cold water three times. And take it out
twice! :-)

--
HRM Resident

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 5:06:14 PMAug 7
to
Mike Spencer <m...@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

>
> We can slice and dice the details until the cows come home, but
> the bottom line is that when social media enables evil people
> to communicate en masse with gullible people, starting with
> chain emails and culminating with Facebook, the stage is set
> for the downfall of democracy.
> -- Lauren Weinstein

Spot on. That’s what I have been saying for 15
years.

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 5:10:05 PMAug 7
to
You define yourself as good. So don't be silent! :)

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 5:11:08 PMAug 7
to
I'm afraid you're intent will be clear. So be prepared to pay. :)

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 5:14:49 PMAug 7
to
On 2022-08-07 6:04 PM, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>     I never said I wanted to make free speech illegal.  YOU tell
>>> me what changed post around 2010-2015.  Do you think it's better
>>> now?  If so, then I guess you want even more hate speech.  Give
>>> us a solution. Don't throw up your hands and say there's nothing
>>> that can be done other than fool with social media.
>>>
>>
>> Rebuttal.
>>
>> Everything changes. In Canada hate speech is illegal.
>> In other countries, maybe not.
>>
>> Are you suggesting the internet be moderated? By who? You?
>>
>
> No. I asked you a question. You just said things change.
> Which is code for I have no answer so I’ll flip it around
> and make the other guy answer his own question.

You're right. I have no answer because there is no answer
that won't restrict freedom of speech to an arbitrary
degree depending on who objects.

My solution was to appoint you as moderator. I think
you're an honourable fellow. SO, how about it? :)

>
> Stop dodging. What level of hate speech is illegal in
> Canada?

What amount will lead to the laws being enforced?

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 5:16:13 PMAug 7
to
So, will you let it happen or will you fight
for democracy. If you want it there may be a price
to pay for it.

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 5:46:05 PMAug 7
to
Try the suggestion above. :-)

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 5:49:04 PMAug 7
to
That might be a good idea. It is also ad homenem. :)

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 5:51:07 PMAug 7
to
James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> All I have to say is “I am hearing” in front of it, or ask if it’s
>> true. Run that by your shyster brother! :-)
>>
>
> I'm afraid you're intent will be clear. So be prepared to pay. :)
>

“A lot of people are saying” <something rotten
and creepy about JW> “Can this possibility be true?”

Your stupid brother shyster won’t have a chance
against my solicitor, Joel Pink! :-)

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 7:45:10 PMAug 7
to
On 2022-08-07 6:51 PM, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> All I have to say is “I am hearing” in front of it, or ask if it’s
>>> true. Run that by your shyster brother! :-)
>>>
>>
>> I'm afraid you're intent will be clear. So be prepared to pay. :)
>>
>
> “A lot of people are saying” <something rotten
> and creepy about JW> “Can this possibility be true?”

It is too nonspecific to be slander.

>
> Your stupid brother shyster won’t have a chance
> against my solicitor, Joel Pink! :-)
>

Truth trumps attitude. :)

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 7:52:11 PMAug 7
to
James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> “A lot of people are saying” <something rotten
>> and creepy about JW> “Can this possibility be true?”
>
> It is too nonspecific to be slander.
>

That’s why it’s worded that way. Plants the idea
and says nothing specific. Trump 101.

>>
>> Your stupid brother shyster won’t have a chance
>> against my solicitor, Joel Pink! :-)
>>
>
> Truth trumps attitude. :)
>

Joel could have got Jack the Ripper off! :-)

--
HRM Resident

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 7:54:33 PMAug 7
to
I was told to do that dozens of times as a kid.
But they were never serious.

At least I hope they were not. Thinking back . . . :-)

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 7, 2022, 9:13:23 PMAug 7
to
On 2022-08-07 8:52 PM, HRM Resident wrote:
> James Warren <jwwar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> “A lot of people are saying” <something rotten
>>> and creepy about JW> “Can this possibility be true?”
>>
>> It is too nonspecific to be slander.
>>
>
> That’s why it’s worded that way. Plants the idea
> and says nothing specific. Trump 101.

"Something rotten and creepy" is non-specific but
something rotten and creepy is. I sue.

>
>>>
>>> Your stupid brother shyster won’t have a chance
>>> against my solicitor, Joel Pink! :-)
>>>
>>
>> Truth trumps attitude. :)
>>
>
> Joel could have got Jack the Ripper off! :-)
>

LOL If he bribed the judge and the jury. :)

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 8, 2022, 9:51:26 AMAug 8
to
On 2022-08-07 10:13 p.m., James Warren wrote:

>
> "Something rotten and creepy" is non-specific but
> something rotten and creepy is. I sue.
>

I'm hearing James Warren eats baby spiders
alive in front of their parent spiders. Is this
true?

Sue away! When Joel Pink is through with you,
there won't be a shred of flesh left on our bones!

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 8, 2022, 10:36:02 AMAug 8
to
On 2022-08-08 10:51 AM, HRM Resident wrote:
> On 2022-08-07 10:13 p.m., James Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> "Something rotten and creepy" is non-specific but
>> something rotten and creepy is. I sue.
>>
>
>     I'm hearing James Warren eats baby spiders
> alive in front of their parent spiders. Is this
> true?

Even if this were true it is not slanderous. Baby
spiders are delicious. :)

>
>     Sue away! When Joel Pink is through with you,
> there won't be a shred of flesh left on our bones!
>

Yeah, yeah.

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 8, 2022, 10:49:05 AMAug 8
to
On 2022-08-08 11:35 a.m., James Warren wrote:

>
> Even if this were true it is not slanderous. Baby
> spiders are delicious. :)
>

If it's true, it's cruel and weird. Think of
the poor parent spiders. I'm just asking if it's
true.

>
> Yeah, yeah.
>

You won't have a pot to piss in!

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 8, 2022, 11:58:59 AMAug 8
to
On 2022-08-08 11:49 AM, HRM Resident wrote:
> On 2022-08-08 11:35 a.m., James Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> Even if this were true it is not slanderous. Baby
>> spiders are delicious. :)
>>
>
>     If it's true, it's cruel and weird. Think of
> the poor parent spiders. I'm just asking if it's
> true.

Could be.

>
>>
>> Yeah, yeah.
>>
>
>     You won't have a pot to piss in!
>

I can always piss in my back yard; good for the grass.

HRM Resident

unread,
Aug 8, 2022, 2:02:24 PMAug 8
to
On 2022-08-08 12:58 p.m., James Warren wrote:

>
> I can always piss in my back yard; good for the grass.
>

Indecent exposure comes to mind! :-)

--
HRM Resident

James Warren

unread,
Aug 8, 2022, 2:04:58 PMAug 8
to
On 2022-08-08 3:02 PM, HRM Resident wrote:
> On 2022-08-08 12:58 p.m., James Warren wrote:
>
>>
>> I can always piss in my back yard; good for the grass.
>>
>
>     Indecent exposure comes to mind! :-)
>

I am surrounded by trees. Not an issue. :)

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages