Dean Parrington

Okay that’s fair enough but I literally never once said the first comment was anything the police would investigate so I don’t know what point there is to be made there. My initial comment expressed my indifference towards one shitty person being threatened by another shitty person, it had absolutely nothing to do with legality whatsoever.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide I'll concede specifically using the "legally actionable" term. But my actual point is that the first comment doesn't even warrant an investigation and wouldn't be a cause for one. The second one unquestionably does, even if nothing comes from it. That's the difference.

@VelcroShoeLaces @ontheflipsiide Freedom of speech is exactly why a person saying they're going to start planning a school shooting, would need to attempt to purchase a weapon, or show any red flags beyond speech of that plan having begun to form, before something legally actionable would happen.

@VelcroShoeLaces @ontheflipsiide The initial argument you made was about this being "legally actionable" and if investigators don't find any actions or a person's identity associated with a social media account to investigate, there's not much of anything legally actionable for them to work with.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide There's still a big difference you're not distinguishing. The original comment isn't anything investigation worthy. It would be dismissed immediately. The second comment, even if never acted upon, is still investigation worthy. Doesn't matter if they don't find anything.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide No, I'm defending people's freedom of speech. Saying "abort all male babies" is protected speech just as "kill all Nazis" is. But saying "I'm gonna buy a gun, pick a school, shoot all the girls I see and enjoy doing it," isn't. Still not sure how you don't see the difference.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide The first, if taken to authorities, would be dismissed immediately because it's just a comment, even if a hateful one. The second one would *easily* be investigated due to the level of specifics involved; buying a gun, choosing a location, picking targets, enjoying doing it.

@VelcroShoeLaces @ontheflipsiide And you’re “weirdly defending” the person who wants to abort all male children, you dork.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide And my point was that even if an investigation is dismissed, the first comment wouldn't even warrant opening one. The second one would VERY easily be flagged for an investigation. And yet you keep arguing and weirdly defending the person who claims to *want* to shoot up a school

@VelcroShoeLaces @ontheflipsiide Considering that legality of abortion varies from state to state, a comment about aborting all male children could very well be investigated, depending on the state the poster lives in, so both could be flagged for an investigation and potentially dismissed for various reasons.

Well I never at any point said the first comment was legally actionable or any violation of the law... As far as the second one being legally actionable; that depends on what you mean and would largely be contingent on a variety of other factors. If the person was investigated and showed no other signs of potential violence besides online posts, no weapon ownership, no prior violent history, no one L/E talks to claims they're physically violent or make these types of threats in person, the likelihood of being arrested of being arrested solely for online posts/messages is very low. An AI search says arrests for online posts are very rare and almost always will need additional factors. x.com/i/grok/share/b…

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide No, I read your post and the related incident. But prompted or not, the original comment would be dismissed because it's just a blanket comment, even if it is hateful. The reply is literally a legally actionable comment. Not sure how you keep missing this.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide Weird. Almost like saying "abort all male infants" is not even in the same league of despicable as someone saying they actively want to plan for and murder as many school girls as they possibly can because they view females as less than human. But again, keep defending that...

@VelcroShoeLaces @ontheflipsiide No actually I didn't, but you're ignoring the relevant context of what the person was replying to in the first place, and acting as if the DM exists in a vacuum, prompted by absolutely nothing.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide Except you're still ignoring the *content* of Person B's reply, which was planned. Buy a gun, pick a school, shoot as many girls as possible and enjoy doing it. You're *still* defending the person who said they wanted to actively murder kids. Talk about delusional.

@VelcroShoeLaces @ontheflipsiide Person A says "I'll abort if it's a boy, kill all male infants", so Person B replies "I want to shoot up a girl's school, kill all females" and your running around acting as if the second statement isn't in retaliation to the first. Delusional.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide Lil bro doesn't understand the difference between a blanket, albeit an unnecessary comment, and a comment involving the announcement of, planning of, execution of, and reveling of murdering as many school girls as possible. These are not the same.

@Krewnn0 @ontheflipsiide Posting that all unborn male infants should be killed right before receiving a hate message trying (and succeeding) to upset you is important context to know, that doesn't mean I'm making a justification for death threats.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide no, but it seems you're attempting to justify it and divert attention from it

this is so fucking disgusting man

@VelcroShoeLaces @ontheflipsiide So when OP posts about aborting all male infants, it's just a silly shit post to you dorks, but a hateful DM in response is 100% an actionable threat. These are just rules that only apply when you want them applied.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide Says the guy indirectly defending a literal hate rant about killing as many school girls as possible because the poster feels that all women are less than human. But please, keep defending that. It seems appropriate for you.

@VelcroShoeLaces @ontheflipsiide Yeah, because “shut the fuck up” is such a thought provoking erudite comment, which warrants a well thought out response. Holy shit you’re fucking retarded.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide Should have guessed that I'd get a 1 word, grunt reply from a mouth breathing troglodyte like you.

@Krewnn0 @ontheflipsiide I didn’t send the DM, dipshit.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide oh no! the person who advocates for women to be killed is upset about mean words!

@Nygma619 1. You provided one example so that’s what I was responding to, genius. 2. If you’ve read enough of their articles & truly don’t know the side they lean, you’re beyond helping.

@ParringtonDean 1. What part of plenty of times are you not getting? 2. Snopes is not democrats ideological shield, & there's no proof of that.

For Democrats in 2012, just “running a campaign” was saying your milquetoast moderate opponent was going to bring back slavery.

@nottheb0reworms @ontheflipsiide Here’s the context OP that it takes 5 seconds to find, genius.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide I didn’t know children were “men” and not “boys” but ok

@Skater__Rebecca @ontheflipsiide

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide Dude i am talking about the message they got

@Nygma619 Confirming a crowd picture is real isn’t the same as being their ideological shield, get real dude.

@ParringtonDean Snopes has backed up Republicans (even trump) plenty of times. For instance: snopes.com/fact-check/cro…

@VelcroShoeLaces @ontheflipsiide No.

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide Please do *EVERYONE* a favor and just...shut the fuck up.

@Skater__Rebecca @ontheflipsiide Agreed, advocating for children to be murdered is bad!

@ParringtonDean @ontheflipsiide Dawg shut the fuck up this shit is not okay