20324220? ago

operation 6 degrees

https://i.redd.it/4zo2k4e2hbz01.jpg

Op6d #0p6d

operation 4 colors

https://i.redd.it/cl1zedjkbbu21.png

Op4c #0p4c

operation 64 squares

Op64s #0p64s

https://i.redd.it/0lwidftmf3021.jpg

re hashtags

hashtags are good for collating info across space and time.

hashtags can start with either the number 0, or the letter O,

depending how you want your hashtags alphabetized...

hashtags maybe suffixed with other numbers or letters to help filter, collate and organize

for example, if i wanted my hashtag to be alphabetized at the top of a list, id start with the number 0, like #0p6d

because if i used the letter O, my hashtag would be buried half-way down an alphabetized list... #Op6d

if i was researching something specific, like John F Kennedy, i could suffix the hashtag like #0p6dJFK

so i may hashtag my tweet, or whatever, with #0p6d to put it in the general bucket for operation 6 degrees...

then i'd add the #0p6dJFK hashtag so that i can find my specific tweet months later when i go to look for it, or if someone else is following my bread crumbs

an obvious next step might be to make a #0p6dRFK hashtag to do an operation 6 degrees on JFK's brother Robert F Kennedy

so to do an operation 6 degrees, we merely start with the name of our "target", in this case our target is JFK...

then we start reading about JFK, and learning about his various social networks, and "hashtagging" each relevant persons name equally, until w have a list of names that is maybe 20 names long list.

when you have compiled a list of names, "the truth" will start revealing itself to you, not by any one data point, but by the big picture of how all these people fit together...

once we have a target selected, (in this case JFK), we can also select any name in the world, living or dead, and perform a "network analysis" between those two people,

and before we even start the operation 6 degrees, we know that there will be at most 6 degrees of separation, between our 2 people we have targeted.

for example, we could start with JFK and then randomly select Barack Obama aka #0p6dBHO

since both men were presidents, we could easily do an #0p6d on the series of presidents from JFK to BHO,

or we could do an #0p6d on the series of First Ladies from RFK to BHO

we can literally take any path imaginable...

but creating a 6 degree social network path is just the start.

the next step is to find shorter paths.

so instead of every president from JFK to BHO, we could skip some presidents, since each president knows multiple other presidents...

and pretty soon, we are looking at GHWB pretty hard...

and GHWB's connections to the family of the man who tried to assassinate Ronald Wilson Reason (RWR) (RR?)

thru these social network analysis, we begin to learn to construct narratives, based on peoples names, to makes sense of what we are seeing.

if done correctly, many people can collaborate, with each person doing a different task, and presenting it to the rest of the group.

so one person could work on #0p6dJFK while another person works on #0p6dRFK, and both present their work under the common umbrella of #0p6d

operation 6 degrees has already been in use for many years.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/0p6d?src=hash

20324180? ago

There is a line somewhere between "I wish you were dead" and "I want to kill you".

20324572? ago

And "I intend on killing you"

20323842? ago

Yeah no, no one should be arrested solely because of statements they make. There needs to be evidence of an actual crime.

20323991? ago

Threats are an actual crime.

Attempting to create terror, like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater, is an actual crime.

20324094? ago

Yelling fire in a movie theater is entirely different from posting online. Yelling fire in a theater, can cause actual damage and harm, posting something online does not.

20324138? ago

Not really. If someone posts a threat online about the movie theater, would people feel comfortable going there? There are consequences for threats. Free speech doesn't cover threats of violence.

20324482? ago

Posting online is not a credible threat, especially with the prevalence of trolls these days.

If they make credible threats, sure charge them and give them a trial.

20324589? ago

People's "thoughts" online, transfer into their view of the real world too.

There is no difference between online speech and face to face speech....except of course, you don't get punched in the mouth for being an asshole....

20324978? ago

And punching someone just because they are assholes constitutes assault (or the local criminal equivalent), so just because they run their mouth doesn't give you the right to punch them. But that is not the meat of the debate.

"In criminal law, a threat of harm varies according to the crime and state law. For instance, the crime of inciting a riot involves the threat of public alarm. The threat of harm involved in an assault may involve a reasonably perceived threat of physical injury. Pointing a banana at someone and threatening to shoot them would not be a reasonably perceived threat, however, if the banana was concealed in a pocket to appear as a weapon, the threat may be a reasonable perception of harm."

An online post would be equivalent to pointing a banana at someone and "shooting" them. I.E. not credible.

If you are advocating arresting people for their "thoughts", you are in fact advocating for "thought crime", whether you recognize it or not. I suggest you go study up on law.

20325400? ago

Incorrect, in fact online posters have then gone on to commit the deeds they spoke of...mass murders. Online threats need to be taken seriously as what they are, threats.

You cannot see online that the person holds only a banana.

Assault is a perceived threat of attack. Touching someone, pushing them, is battery.

I am not advocating for thought crime or red flag laws. i am pointing out that MSM and Hollywood have created a generation of people who have no idea what the fuck they are doing or saying.

20325683? ago

as·sault

/əˈsôlt/

Learn to pronounce

verb

1.

make a physical attack on.

"he pleaded guilty to assaulting a police officer"

Battery

law : an offensive touching or use of force on a person without the person's consent

You got me, I was using the "common" definition of assault and not the legal definition of assault.

"I am not advocating for thought crime or red flag laws. i am pointing out that MSM and Hollywood have created a generation of people who have no idea what the fuck they are doing or saying."

I agree with that assessment of the media.

I am not arguing that people who commit acts of violence do not post online. I am arguing that merely posting online does not constitute a credible threat in and of itself. Mostly referring to that man in florida posting about shooting up a place with a specific type of weapon, gets arrested and doesn't even own those weapons.

20325772? ago

Assault can be just the appearance of doing an attack....getting into someone's personal space.