When we began, we weren't as worried about what to say as how to say it.
So we made a place where we could say it again.
Sometimes people use equivocation to distract people from the true nature of a complaint. For example:
- When being called out for loading Marxism, a complaint about cutting off foreskins ensues.
- Or while being of Racism, Communists cover bigotry and civil rights to encounter text hacked beyond recognition.
We might see through this problem to realize that the problem really does exist and we can find out by trying to do the same thing ourselves (by defending a difficult person for example). Or, if we practice a faith or study a creed that seems racist to some, then how might we change it? We learn to accept our limitations and admit that the sentence we served was inadequate, needed revision, or simply wasn't true. Then, rather than complain about it, we revise the mangled version until our revision is accepted.
The truth works, so if in doubt, just ask. If we're attacked when using slander, libel or defamation (even as an example), then we have a right to ask for proof, but that can be very dangerous, so we let our friends speak for us. You can rely upon what we say about ourselves, but sometimes we need others to prove the merit of our claims by taking a similar position, or speaking for us.
If we've been denied the opportunity to use the courts by fees, violence, contempt, or endless attacks of legalese and psycho babble, we may have been denied our civil rights. By the time we write up complaints online, we ought to know what the cause of the disruption or obstruction really is, but in many cases we don't, and it doen't make sense.
We're much more likely to find out by saying who we are, but unless we truly know, we're not likely to make much progress at all. There are so many things to consider, and many are beyond the definitions set by our courts. Even the meaning our names might conjure up might matter, so we have to be prepared to defend ourselves thoroughly, or we're likely to miss the whole point! It can be that silly - even though it's not supposed to be.
Normally it’s unfair to obstruct the right to free speech, but if a business or other professional is denied their income, or the State it’s authority, they may choose to use their skills to obtain their income, or regain control by removing the obstruction.
This is true of most competitive marketplaces, and it is a fundamental flaw of capitalism. Violence is a fact of life in a free market economy. To ignore it’s ever present threat is foolish. And, without access to legal tender, desperation replaces prudence with difficult, and challenging ways to get needs met.
The Internet does not publish content, human beings do, so the fault is not the Internet’s. The net is simply following instructions provided by a human being. And, because it cannot represent itself, a disparaging report is a public attack on the medium - whether it be 'the cloud', a database, or your local pc. It does no good. Crime is a human behavior resulting from a lack of focus that needs to be corrected by dedication to our disciplines.
The requirement to report can (and has been) replaced by concentration camps at times, where no charges are made, and anyone can enter a plea at any time. Bringing charges can and does lead to violence and lawlessness. And law enforcement responds to harmful behavior of any kind by keeping the peace, and protecting and defending people.
The decisions made by healthcare professionals today are frequently made by equipment we've helped to develop that are accessed by communications we're using right now. We don't need doctors to read results to us. If we continue to improve our mail services, we'll be able to obtain our supplies safely enough to use the diagnostic equipment and procure our medications as well.
However, the strategies used to protect healthcare professionals are so radical, that we may not have an opportunity to recover from them. Consider the fate of prostitutes, who are perhaps the only population that can treat the trauma that results from a medical practice known as circumcision before you do.
When a person identifies themselves as a 'plaintiff', or someone making a complaint, they're required to identify themselves in order to allow for a defense. In some cases, the use of labels, or access to the media used to prove the validity of the claims are obstructed, or destroyed in order to deny the opportunity.