[bluntfang]

>The mobs trying to police everyone else's speech are never the intended audience

If the "mobs" are receiving a message not intended for them, the onus lies on the communicator to resolve this.

I also think it's really funny that you're assuming you know what people involved in fighting the slave trade want. Are you currently doing that?

[julianmarq]

> If the "mobs" are receiving a message not intended for them, the onus lies on the communicator to resolve this.

That's just terrific: I joke around with my friends in private chat, there's a leak, a twitter mob gets ahold of the data and doesn't like my joke. They then try to get me at my job, ultimately getting me fired.

All of that was my fault... As said by you.

> Are you currently doing that?

... I don't know how to answer this. The very root comment you're currently arguing against was made by such a person. We're inside that comment thread...

[bluntfang]

>The very root comment you're currently arguing against was made by such a person. We're inside that comment thread...

Did you make the original statement? I'm confused. You said that people shouldn't be an armchair analyst in discussions. Then you proceeded to do it. I then called you out on it.

[cglace]

Once something leaves your lips/phone/computer it doesn't matter who it is intended for. Surely you know this.

[bluntfang]

>Once something leaves your lips/phone/computer it doesn't matter who it is intended for.

It matters if you choose your audience. I agree, if you make a statement in public, say on twitter, then you've chosen the audience. The world.

[cglace]

Everything has that potential now, DMs included.