Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 14h

The guy on the left is @kenwhite.bsky.social, right?

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 19h

I don't know what a bike corral is, but if it's a group of bikers surrounding and making cars surrender in mass, then yes

a group of sheep are standing in front of a stone wall with the website welele.es in the corner

ALT: a group of sheep are standing in front of a stone wall with the website welele.es in the corner

media.tenor.com

1 4

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 20h

lol at ct street being an issue because of a bike lane. It's a 4 lane parking lot/highway at Trader Joe's.

1 3

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

It's also giving Lana Del Rey.

I like it, and I think those artists would like it too. I don't think its stealing, but certainly building on.

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Btw, I just want to say that I really appreciate the time you took to engage with me on this yesterday. You could have easily dismissed me as someone who always defaults to defending shitty aggressive male behavior online. Instead you engaged with me in good faith and I'm thankful.

1 1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

I agree.

1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Very reasonable take. I don't have a problem abiding by those rules or being a part of a community that does. I question it when its used retroactively after an extending back and forth on an issue where the CEO of the company appears to be giving large portion of the user base the middle finger.

1 2

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

entirely possible. I don't know him. I was merely trying to decide for myself whether I thought it reasonable to interpret what he posted has a death threat in that situation. I don't think it is, but I also agree with your taking that it probably does fall into the "not touching you" area.

1 1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Look, I almost always agree with your takes, so I'm honestly questioning my initial take somewhat. But I don't think I agree with you that (its more likely than not) that he did it to creep her out or threaten her. Her post brought up consequences. I wouldn't have posted what he did, but:

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Not a threat, its a post that works on many levels:

1: Exasperation at her argument

2: Keying off consequences: Is Kirk getting killed the type of consequences she's describing?

3: Kirk was an outrage merchant and after his death, the outrage at people who pointed that out was condoned.

1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

So I've said elsewhere that I wouldn't have personally posted it, but I do think it worked on at least 3 levels as a comment on her specific post, none of which constitute a threat:

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Not a threat, its a post that works on many levels:

1: Exasperation at her argument

2: Keying off consequences: Is Kirk getting killed the type of consequences she's describing?

3: Kirk was an outrage merchant and after his death, the outrage at people who pointed that out was condoned.

1 1 11

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

I completely agree. I found this response confounding as the guys resume seems to suggest he may represent how the tech community thinks they handle these things (and maybe even why):

Max Woolf @minimaxir.bsky.social · 1d

For death threats in particular, social media platforms take the Occam's Razor approach.

Ironic subtext doesn't work when the platform would be legally liable if there is no action taken.

2

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

So please don't jump in to criticize the person in this convo (she acknowledges elsewhere that it's not a credible threat).

She did help me understand why she believes this behavior was threatening. In part it's our fundamental different view of what an image of Kirk implies.

1 2

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

So I think I generally agree with this. As we can now see from our other back and worth, we started from radically different positions on whether it would be reasonable to interpret a picture of Charlie Kirk being a threat.

Honestly, that gulf in starting point is why I wouldn't have posted it.

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

I interpret everything regards Kirk online as being political argument steeped in irony because of how absolutely ridiculously the US responded to him dying. I couldn't imagine receiving a picture of him and thinking for a moment that it was a death threat.

1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

I'm relatively confident the second part isn't true, lots of legal protections for the platform. Completely confident as applied.

I also don't think the first part is true. However, your resume suggests you may know more than I do.

Finally, Occam's Razor would lead me to think: not a threat.

1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Ok, that is legitimately an L on my part. I can't control bigots and assholes liking a post of mine that I think is independently correct, but I agree its an L.

1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Care to explain why?

Note: If I or my arguments are creeping you out (not at all my intention) then I'd rather just end the interaction, as there's no reason to make you uncomfortable over our differing interpretations of 3rd party behavior.

1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

But your ignoring the context of what happened and why someone would respond with this.

I'm not saying I would have done it. But the question is whether it was a threat or not a threat.

Give the context of her post, I believe it's the second. I did think through it though.

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Not a threat, its a post that works on many levels:

1: Exasperation at her argument

2: Keying off consequences: Is Kirk getting killed the type of consequences she's describing?

3: Kirk was an outrage merchant and after his death, the outrage at people who pointed that out was condoned.

2 2

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

When the post your quote posting talks about societal consequences of posting on social media, It's not abnormal behavior. It's literally responding to the substance of the post by calling into question what consequences the person was claiming flowed from social media behavior.

1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Here is my slightly fuller analysis of why this post made sense as a specific statement about her post, in this specific context:

(Again, I totally agree with you that implied threats, especially in the DV context, can be contextual and difficult to parse). I truly don't think this is one.

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Not a threat, its a post that works on many levels:

1: Exasperation at her argument

2: Keying off consequences: Is Kirk getting killed the type of consequences she's describing?

3: Kirk was an outrage merchant and after his death, the outrage at people who pointed that out was condoned.

1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

They aren't in a domestic relationship. This is not that type of threat (a very big deal). I get what you're saying. I can see how in certain circumstances this being a threat would make sense. But not in this circumstances. Her post discussed "consequences" on society. Is Kirk's death an example?

1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Not a threat, its a post that works on many levels:

1: Exasperation at her argument

2: Keying off consequences: Is Kirk getting killed the type of consequences she's describing?

3: Kirk was an outrage merchant and after his death, the outrage at people who pointed that out was condoned.

1 7

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

That's not a threat to her. How is that a threat to her?

It keys off of negative consequences at large. It is basically mocking her point about consequences. Are these the types of consequences she's claiming the waffle/pancake issue creates?

3 19

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

Well if Link happens to reside in the EU, then they probably did do something legally wrong. But I agree that based on US law this is"fine"

1

Geoff Bowser @geoffbowser.bsky.social · 1d

I looked for it, but can't find what he posted it in regards to. I do think the context matters. It was a reaction meme according to him. So I could see how that could potentially be a threat, but the circumstances would have to be really specific.

1 2