Useless SJW gives the finger to the wrong dude.

originally posted by: Martin75
a reply to: InTheLight

So, why drone on about this one in particular and not the underlying issues

This post is about this case. Not anything else. If you would like to discuss the other things start a new thread.

The underlying issues are a big part of understanding any incident/case, but I see the facts are irrelevant.

a reply to: InTheLight

Why indeed?

I think I actually tried to address the underlying issue here. She hates so deeply that it has literally driven her insane. There is no reasonable way to outlaw hate or insanity; the only recourse is to separate those so insane or who embrace hatred so fully as to become dangerous from the rest of society.

That is difficult to do when there are so many who will look at the evidence and make a decision based on outlandish theories that conflict with direct evidence just because they share the hate. Accepting illegal behavior is not the path to a more reasoned society; it is the path to chaos. Calling illegal and hateful actions what they are openly and vociferously is the path to maintaining a reasoned society.

That's what we are doing here: calling the facts as they are when they come to light. Is Tara Dublin the only problem? No... HELL NO! But she is a problem, and one must start somewhere or one gets nowhere.

I would hope that those in this thread agreeing with me are of the same mind as I... regardless of political affiliation or preference, right is right and wrong is wrong. It does not matter if the signs were for Trump or Clinton, nor does it matter who supported who in the election, or who is male and who is female, or who is bigger than who physically. All that matters is someone broke the law and needs to be punished so others do not follow in her footsteps.

To kill a weed, one must start at the roots. Not nurture the roots while complaining they have weeds.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you, that was a wonderful and fair reply. So if this person in this particular case has mental issues and was driven insane by her politics or some other trigger, why not address this fact, and go from there? This thread seems to have no purpose other than to ridicule a person with suspected mental issues.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you, that was a wonderful and fair reply. So if this person in this particular case has mental issues and was driven insane by her politics or some other trigger, why not address this fact, and go from there? This thread seems to have no purpose other than to ridicule a person with suspected mental issues.

No, this thread is an example of a triggered person and how damaging it can be to the political system, to others and ultimately themselves. Also, this thread exists to find out the truth in this matter. You even said yourself you'd wait for the court verdict to decide, but it seems your BIAS and mind is already made up.

originally posted by: thepixelpusher

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you, that was a wonderful and fair reply. So if this person in this particular case has mental issues and was driven insane by her politics or some other trigger, why not address this fact, and go from there? This thread seems to have no purpose other than to ridicule a person with suspected mental issues.

No, this thread is an example of a triggered person and how damaging it can be to others and themselves. Also, this thread exists to find out the truth in this matter. You even said yourself you'd wait for the verdict to decide, but it seems your BIAS and mind is already made up.

What truth in this matter? That she is indeed what you all suspect, mentally unhinged or politically triggered to act out her anger and frustration? Which finding would help anyone find any truth?

The only truth will then be that if she is mentally unstable she should be helped not ridiculed (which, if this is the case, then I hope the judge will rule compassionately and assist her to get the help she needs), alternatively, if she is found to be a political activist going off the deep end (as many others in your country) with a little provocation then ridiculing this one person and not looking at why she and others are doing this is not going to help anyone or educate anyone in how to protect themselves, while still exercising their freedom of speech (including putting up or wearing political signs that will provide a trigger/provocation for these 'off the deep end' people). This thread could do so much more to educate rather than ridicule.

a reply to: InTheLight

Exactly how does one address the problem if that problem is a refusal to adhere to law and order?

By enforcing law and order.

That is what we have been calling for in this thread. In my opinion, people have let issues like this slide for far too long by not clamoring for justice to be served in these kind of cases. As a result, we have seen an uptick in issues such as this, with the result being the mess of an election cycle we are now embroiled in.

The solution is to ensure that justice is allowed to prevail whenever someone uses threats, intimidation, cyber-bullying, or harassment to accomplish their personal agendas. Tara Dublin's case is just one of many, but is as important as any other.

As to the ridicule issue, yes we have been ridiculing her. Guilty as charged. But the only reason we have been doing so is that she does the exact same thing, and has apparently done so for some time with impunity. In the absence of legal justice, the only recourse available to a reasonable person is to fight fire with fire. The objective is to get this kind of behavior to stop, preferably by law, but if that is not forthcoming then by whatever means works.

Example: If someone tries to rob me, my first, best preference is for a policeman to be nearby and stop the robbery. That works out better for me because I don't have to take matters into my own hands, better for the robber because of the same reason, and better for the police and society because there will be less violence. But if there is no policeman around to protect me, I must resort to protecting myself. That might entail running away (doubtful in my case), or it might entail actually killing the robber, or somewhere in between. But either way, I have the right to defend myself and am therefore in the right to use the same tactics on him (physical violence) as he uses or intends to use on me.

In Tara's case, her addiction to social media and name-calling leads others to do the same to her unless and until legal protection is seen as forthcoming. You may notice that the ridicule died down and discussion of legal repercussions increased when it was found that legal protection for her victim was forthcoming. All here prefer that this be resolved through law enforcement, but all here would also like to see this woman pay for her misdeeds. If legal means are available,they will be preferred, but justice should prevail in any case.

This is simply human nature. One cannot legislate against it successfully, nor can one shame others into abandoning it. It is what it is.

TheRedneck

a reply to: InTheLight

I see that this thread has grown into a saga..

I will say, the original intent of this thread, as stated in the opening line, was to showcase this woman's unbridled stupidity. I did this at her request.

I intended to have this be an example of what harm could come of such delusional self-righteousness. It has gone far better than I could ever have hoped, possibly even concluding in self inflicted legal ramifications.

It has been a fascinating train wreck. I hope that others will learn from the Tararist, and deal with their political aversions in a constructive manner.

Frankly, this is the consequence of thinking one can behave in a real life situation, as they might behave on a message board.

The Tararist has just had a real ego check, outside of the comfort of her echo chambers. It is a beautiful thing really.

Sorry that you can't find the humor in her failure to be an adult.

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

You have already judged her without a trial, and a non-compassionate one at that. What if she and others that act out in this manner are indeed mentally ill? What type of justice would have been served?

a reply to: InTheLight

...ridiculing this one person and not looking at why she and others are doing this is not going to help anyone or educate anyone in how to protect themselves, while still exercising their freedom of speech (including putting up or wearing political signs that will provide a trigger/provocation for these 'off the deep end' people). This thread could do so much more to educate rather than ridicule.

Could it?

We could entertain theories all day and all year for that matter as to why she is angry and why she is triggered, but we already know the result. We know it because that is exactly what we have done for the last couple of decades. The result is that these kinds of cases increase in both frequency and intensity. That is the opposite of the goal, and therefore indicates that this approach is counterproductive. Before we tried the sympathetic understanding approach, the accepted approach was enforcement of personal responsibility for one's own actions. Since that approach worked better than the present one, is it not logical to return to it before trying a new course yet again?

There are only two ways to protect one's freedom of speech when attacked: involve law enforcement or attack back. Tara Dublin is one person, yes, but would you have us berate everyone that fit a stereotype of her? That would involve ridiculing quite a few honest, hardworking people for no good reason. Better to take each case at its own face value.

TheRedneck

a reply to: InTheLight

Is mental illness an excuse for illegal behavior?

The law recognizes mental illness as a defense if proven, but the result is that the confinement is in a mental institution rather than a prison cell. If confinement from society is not enforced, then all of society is at risk in the effort to help one lone individual. That is not justice.

TheRedneck

a reply to: InTheLight

She subjected herself to a trial of public opinion the moment she shared her videos. She did not like the outcome, she refused to let it go, and now it has snowballed to what we see.

Secondly, I don't really care if she is mentally ill. Mental illness has been turned into a catch-all phrase to excuse the abhorrent actions of stupid people. I don't buy it.

I'm not saying mental illness doesn't exist, I just don't wish to further belittle the actual cases by ascribing the condition to a lonely, useless, blowhard b!tch such as the Tararist.

a reply to: TheRedneck


Taking each case at face value without knowing important facts (such as motive or mental capacity of perpetrator) elicits unfair judgement.

If an activist manages to elicit much media coverage, is this not the intended goal? The result then is success for the activist at getting an important message out.

If a triggered, angry and mentally ill person has media coverage, what will be the result, if they feel berated and attacked? I think this may be what we are seeing in Tara's case.

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

She has not snowballed it, you did, as well as labeling her incorrectly and jumping to conclusions from the get go. But, hey, 'tis par the course here at ATS, I should just sit back and expect it by now.

a reply to: InTheLight

I might have a dozen posts in this thread, compared to nearly a week long Twitter tantrum on the part of the Tararist.

I really haven't snowballed anything.

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

Without your input, we wouldn't know of this or care, now would we?

It appears to me that Tara is mostly tweet ranting/insulting about Trump, which everyone seems to be doing - everywhere.

Are you a Trump supporter, by chance?

originally posted by: Bobaganoosh
The Tararist has just had a real ego check, outside of the comfort of her echo chambers.

No she hasn't.

Oh, to any normal person, this would be an ego check. I guarantee you, however, that she will remain convinced that she is entirely blameless. This will be nothing more than a confirmation for her that the world/right wing/internet/patriarchy/etc really is out to get her.

If I was a gambling man, I'd put $100 on her claiming within the next month that "they" are trying to silence her because she is so "dangerous", what with being such a pretty, intelligent, articulate, and all-round amazing person with a gift for witty one-liners that put those pesky slack-jawed redneck rightwing Trumspters in their place.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

You have already judged her without a trial, and a non-compassionate one at that.

She put the victim on trial in the worst possible way - in a court of opinion where she is the prosecutor AND the judge, and the only person allowed to adduce evidence or make arguments.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

You have already judged her without a trial, and a non-compassionate one at that.

She put the victim on trial in the worst possible way - in a court of opinion where she is the prosecutor AND the judge, and the only person allowed to adduce evidence or make arguments.

If that is true, then she is doing what all of you are doing here...kettle/pot.

a reply to: InTheLight

This is not the only message board with this story. Though, this thread is by far the most objective and accurate.

You also keep coming back to my "mislabeling" her as a "useless SJW", but that label too is accurate. If you will look at the comments on various sites running this video, you will see actual SJW's begging her to drop it and move on. The Tararist is a real martyr without a cause, as in the realm of public opinion, almost nobody wishes for her support. Nobody is buying her vicarious suffering.

Nobody will hire her. She is indeed useless. Her toxicity is recognized even by those she claims as allies.

Your point is moot.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Bobaganoosh

You have already judged her without a trial, and a non-compassionate one at that.

She put the victim on trial in the worst possible way - in a court of opinion where she is the prosecutor AND the judge, and the only person allowed to adduce evidence or make arguments.

If that is true, then she is doing what all of you are doing here...kettle/pot.

Not even a close match. This is a discussion board. You subscribe to post here nd adhere to rules. We are not broadcasting this at all, like she willingly has done on Twitter and YouTube. Your BIAS is showing when you insist only Trump supporters side against her slanderous and criminal actions. If you'd bother to read xojane.com, there are plenty of feminist Hillary supporters that think she is not one of them and is justified in getting in trouble for her actions. Don't make this into a Trump thing, it's not, it's a personal action thing. Period.

You really show your dislike of Trump and your BIAS and disregard for the laws we have. You're not waiting for any verdict. You posts DO NOT reflect that at all.