R+P Keeps Digging

Look at this hilariousness. Those of you in the tech industry will truly appreciate it:

As such, we are implementing the necessary Web 3.0 Social capabilities to ensure that each individual voice is not just heard, but protected against cyber-bullying, virtual filibustering, off-topic rhetoric, or defamatory and inflammatory language that is not related to the discussion thread.

Read the whole sad thing. Web 3.0? Really? They are totally beyond this whole Web 2.0 thing. We dumb rednecks can’t even begin to appreciate their sophistication. Even Bloomberg isn’t stupid enough to be this condescending and insulting toward gun owners. Bloomberg, at least, has the decently to be forthrightly condescending to us. We know where Bloomberg stands.

The more I see from these R+P people, the more I believe they really think we’re the reason there can’t be a conversation. Even though none of us censor or squash dissenting viewpoints, whereas it’s SOP for their side (and apparently for R+P too). I think these guys believe they are what the gun debate has been waiting for. Sorry, no. We’ve read this shitty novel before, and didn’t like it 5 years ago either. R+P is nothing new. In fact, they are a far more humorous and amateurish than the previous version of this farce.

32 thoughts on “R+P Keeps Digging”

      1. Technically, the concept of Web 3.0 exists.

        However, there isn’t any consensus about what it means (hell, Web 2.0 is considered by some to be a distinction without a difference), and there isn’t ANY definition to my knowledge that meshes with the one given by R+P. It’s straight up BS.

  1. Let them speak. They more they do, the less likely they are to realize and revenue from this business they’re trying to start. Soon enough, they’ll just pack up and shut down the virtual servers.

  2. Their website is just a basic WordPress template. Is there a “Web 3.0 Social” WordPress plugin they’re going to wow the world with (after paying the requisite $19.95 licensing fee, of course)?

    Moderating unfavorable comments isn’t exactly bleeding edge technology.

    I think it might be fun to think up some new meanings for their abbreviation. I submit: Rhetoric & Pandering.

  3. As such, we are implementing the necessary Web 3.0 Social capabilities to ensure that each individual voice is not just heard, but protected against cyber-bullying, virtual filibustering, off-topic rhetoric, or defamatory and inflammatory language that is not related to the discussion thread.

    Translation: If you defend your natural right of self defense on our site, we will delete your comments and close your account. Because free speech.

  4. It was not anticipated how rapidly we would validate all of our assumptions, one of which being that not a single safe harbor forum* exists online where discussions pertaining to firearms may be conducted civilly without reprisal and malicious attacks on free speech.

    This was my favorite. Yeah, you bastards here at SNBQ never let us talk about guns! Just like the hundreds of other gun blogs that don’t allow gun talk.

    1. I love that they apparently felt that one of their two foot notes had to be defining Safe Harbor.

      1. And they apparently confused “Safe Harbor” with “Pearl Harbor” in the implementation.

  5. My favorite was this phrase: “validate specific digital assumptions”

    Because digital assumptions are vastly different from those Web 1.0 analog assumptions.

    These goobers really do love their buzzwords.

  6. It’s amazing to me how deeply these guys hold the assumption that they need to control the message. They really don’t see the irony in “protecting free expression” by deleting comments. They try so hard to hide their stripes, but the instincts can’t be suppressed.

    1. And at the same time accuse the NRA of only representing the “Corporations” while they are only representing their own corporation’s interests and deleting any dissenters……

  7. Reminds me of the “defunct” American Hunters and Shooters Association. They were in the tank for Obama in ’08, going so far as to secure an appearance by him at a skeet shooting competition (he didn’t show). I say “defunct” because they disappeared at around the same time that the American Rifle Association appeared. Someone did some digging and found that the AHSA and the ARA had (gasp!) the same leadership and the same taxypayer identification numbers. Oopsie.

    No public explanation was ever given as to why the transformation occurred, but no one needed a reason. They used up what little reputation they might have had by endlessly shilling for the most anti-gun president in history.

    I don’t understand why they don’t get it. This has been tried before, and we didn’t fall for it then. I guess they’re working from the stereotype that gun owners are all a bunch of ignorant rednecks.

    Good luck with that.

  8. Oh, and TTAG noted that they’re threatening to lawyer up if they’re ‘libeled’ or ‘slandered’.

    Good luck on that.

    1. Gotta wonder if they know that truth is an affirmative defense to claims of “libel” or “slander”.

  9. Here’s an idea for an experiment, if someone feels like making the effort: Set up a couple phony gmail or yahoo accounts just for the purpose, contact R+P with favorable comments from those accounts, and then sit back and see if you eventually start getting spam from “other” groups, and what kind those are.

    Come to think of it, try that with some “conservative” outlets, too. You may be surprised at where those addresses travel.

  10. * A Deliberative Forum is a forum where all voices are counted equally;

    So that means one pro-gun person is allowed to post, and then a rep from the Brady Bunch, MAIG, etc get to answer? “Equal” representation, right?

    Looks like a lot of words to say that Reasoned Discourse will be in effect.

  11. I saw something they had posted earlier about them using “social dynamics” or something. Then there’s the reference here to one of the current lefty bugaboos: “bullying”.

    R+P guys, I’m perfectly aware that’s not rain, so just give up, OK?

  12. “one of the current lefty bugaboos: “bullying”.”

    In the intellectual world, I gather “bullying” means presenting any argument that can’t be refuted, and thus embarrassing your opponent to the level of humiliation. We are supposed to accommodate and “respect” any argument, no matter how absurd. Feelings trump objectivity, every time.

    1. Yes, they seem to have an incredibly expansive definition of “bullying”.

      1. I could agree it’s bullying, if all it amounts to is 50 guys joining in to name-call them the various derivatives of “left/liberal.” But if ten guys line up to ask the same objective questions, that they can’t answer sensibly, that is hardly bullying.

        From the other side, I have yet to hear anyone make the charge of “bullying” against their own, when they recite insults of the quality that, an interest in guns arises from some sort of sexual inadequacy. In fact I have never heard the anti-gun side chide one of their own for bullying.

Comments are closed.