Steersman wrote:cunt wrote:Steersman wrote:
[spoiler]
cunt wrote:Steersman wrote:Harassment seems to be an actionable offense, although I think that Melody would have a real problem trying to prove that in this case but it is, I think, another possibility, at least theoretically.
None of this changes it from being an implicit threat to something else. I'm asking what else you think it might be, or whether you're just blowing smoke out your asshole. If melody thinks she's being harassed, is justified, and responds to it with an implicit threat to job security. Guess what she's still doing.
[/spoiler]
I didn’t say that it wasn’t an implicit threat – I said, or meant, that there were other possible implicit threats, i.e., to
try charging Mykeru with harassment.
In that case it'd only be necessary to indicate knowledge of his name and possibly general location. Going on about "the government" is shorthand for "imma try fucking with your job, bitch". His job is irrelevant.
Have you any proof that Hensley knew that Mykeru works for the government? I assume that is the case since he has virtually confirmed that, but I really wasn’t aware of it, for certain in any case, so it’s a stretch to conclude that she would have known of it too. The thing is that Hensley said absolutely fuck all about his job; all she
said was something about the government which
could have been related to a question of harassment and getting some police involvement. Your inference of “fucking with your job†is what makes it an implicit threat which might reasonably be questioned – you know, the things that skeptics do, or are supposed to do – particularly when there are other hypotheses on the table.
When you first posted your question, I thought you were being even handed. This post demonstrates without a doubt that was not the case, as there is absolutely no need to defend melody's actions in order to demonstrate you belief that he too was in the wrong. You could easily have conceded that she did, in fact, threaten him, and still argue that he was, in your view, committing hypocrisy... But that's not what you did... why?
Next, we see a bias again demonstrated in how charitably you read Melody's post, while you you read Mykeru's uncharitably. Her mentioning that Mykeru knows the government is dismissed as some random statement with no unusual context, but you read Mykeru's "you know nothing about doxxing" comment as if it's a demonstration that he feels threatened. It could also be letting her know that he is familiar with the name she is attributing to him, where it originated, and that, because of her ignorance regarding doxxing, she's headed down the wrong path. But, of course, you don't choose to read that, more charitable interpretation... no, he has to "be on the war-path". Why the bias in how each poster is read?
Finally, just because you weren't aware of the employer attributed to him, doesn't mean Melody wasn't aware. The fact you would discount the possibility that she did know, simply because you didn't, seems, odd... Are you two close? do you share such information regularly? Is there a reason we should accept that, if you don't know it, she wouldn't ether? The only reason you gave as an alternative was calling the authorities, but honestly, who refers to the police as "the government"... and moreover, when limited to a 140 character text, who then uses the longer, less appropriate name... TWICE? Furthermore, the mention of the government was in response to the question "who is we?". Mentioning "You know about the government, don't you" makes absolutely no sense in relation to contacting the police. And when taken in the context of her previous tweet "we know who you are", it is very clear that she is attempting to make known to Mykuru what she thinks she knows about him.
As to the outing of information itself... I need to ask, how can you honestly equate putting up two video's, both containing the same person, committing similar acts based on the same politics, in the same location, and pointing out they are the same person and one of those clips has a name... to being the same as finding a person who has actively attributed his politics to a moniker, can only get his real name through a business transaction, and somehow, unbeknownst to us, determining which {insert name found through business transaction} used the moniker, and where he worked and threatening them with that information? The reason these are different is because creepybittergirl has publicly linked her likeness, name and politics together for all to see, as did one of those identified by AVfM (two of them do not have such links, and this is why I feel AVfM crossed the line with them. But that wasn't Mykeru.). Mykeru has not done this, and if they can find somewhere where he does, in fact, link these together, then by all means, go at it.
