Potentially lethal hoax targets Sanders supporters (article possible NSFW).

[Col. Crackpot]

It wouldnt be very safe if I had to do that would it? :p

For real; bad science knowledge is sad but not worth wishing lethal consequences on someone for.

I know, but it is hard to be sympathetic to soneone who mixes chemicals in their home without researching what they hell they are doing first because Facebook told them to. That's Darwin award level stupidity.

[Zixinus]

Is there any proof that someone actually tried to do this? Because if not, then the joke is on the person who originally created the meme.

[Elheru Aran]

It wouldnt be very safe if I had to do that would it? :p

For real; bad science knowledge is sad but not worth wishing lethal consequences on someone for.

I know, but it is hard to be sympathetic to soneone who mixes chemicals in their home without researching what they hell they are doing first because Facebook told them to. That's Darwin award level stupidity.

Granted... but people shouldn't be posting that shit in the first place. It's one hell of an asshole move.

[General Zod]

I'm just wondering what the difference is between this kind of "joke" and a death threat, because we tend to condemn death threats.

[Lord Revan]

I'm just wondering what the difference is between this kind of "joke" and a death threat, because we tend to condemn death threats.

if you're referring to the OP I'd say it's less of a death threat and more of a terrorist attack, since the person posting the formula isn't threatening to kill anyone but rather is trying to get people to kill themselves thru ignorance and carelessness.

(oh and I'm referring to the person who posted the orginal formula not the person who wrote the OP).

[TheFeniX]

Granted... but people shouldn't be posting that shit in the first place. It's one hell of an asshole move.

Yea, over the past 20 years, I've shortened that to just "I'm on the Internet."

I'm just wondering what the difference is between this kind of "joke" and a death threat, because we tend to condemn death threats.

I don't see anyone condoning the actions of whatever anonymous idiot posted this "joke." But there's a bit of a sympathy grey area if you chose to follow said instructions vs you had an opinion and someone is targeting your group specifically with threats of violence.

If some 30-year-old person jammed a flat-head into a 110 outlet because someone on Reddit told him it would get him stoned, how much sympathy are you really going to have for the guy? At some point, you have to have some responsibility and maybe not believe every random piece of trash you stumble on over the Internet.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm just wondering what the difference is between this kind of "joke" and a death threat, because we tend to condemn death threats.

if you're referring to the OP I'd say it's less of a death threat and more of a terrorist attack, since the person posting the formula isn't threatening to kill anyone but rather is trying to get people to kill themselves thru ignorance and carelessness.

(oh and I'm referring to the person who posted the orginal formula not the person who wrote the OP).

I'd say that the fact they're trying to trick people into doing something potentially lethal doesn't make it terrorism by itself. Just a really dangerous, nasty trick, a crime, and potentially murder/attempted murder.

That their appears to be a political motive (it specifically targets Sanders supporters) does potentially qualify it as terrorism, in my opinion. Basically what separates terrorism from random violence is motivation/goal.

Dictionary definition of terrorism:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

For a more comprehensive definition, here's what the FBI has to say on the matter:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigat ... definition

Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*
"Domestic terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.
18 U.S.C. § 2332b defines the term "federal crime of terrorism" as an offense that:

Is calculated to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct; and
Is a violation of one of several listed statutes, including § 930(c) (relating to killing or attempted killing during an attack on a federal facility with a dangerous weapon); and § 1114 (relating to killing or attempted killing of officers and employees of the U.S.).
* FISA defines "international terrorism" in a nearly identical way, replacing "primarily" outside the U.S. with "totally" outside the U.S. 50 U.S.C. § 1801(c).

Edit: Fixed link.

[Tanasinn]

This is a /pol/ thing and has nothing to do with Clinton. It's a new permutation on a very old prank, the 'growing crystals' one, which was more of a /b/ favorite, as well as advising people to mix bleach and ammonia for various reasons. Such deleterious shoulda-known-better pranks are part and parcel of the site in general, and include things like false flag twitter hashtags such as the 'ban father's day' thing or the 'bald for Bieber' one.

[Dragon Angel]

Also note that "smarter" people who would know better than to blindly mix chemicals can often live with those who would do so anyway. And often have no choice but to. So, the other persons would be their danger.

I have unfortunate experience with this.

[Flagg]

I'm sick of the breathless "Clinton supporters are eeeeeeevil!" bullshit hysterics I've been seeing pretty much everywhere. This is just more of the same.

[The Romulan Republic]

What the fuck are you talking about? Neither my OP nor the article it cites nor the majority of posts in this thread say one fucking word about Clinton supporters being responsible. I even said earlier that I doubt Clinton supporters were behind it. Other posts have reached similar conclusions.

Since you do not quote any particularly post, and the posts immediately prior to yours' do not blame Clinton supporters either, you appear to be directing this comment at the thread in general- in which case it is, of course, false.

So spare us your agenda, your faux righteous indignation, and your dishonesty.

[Flagg]

What the fuck are you talking about? Neither my OP nor the article it cites nor the majority of posts in this thread say one fucking word about Clinton supporters being responsible. I even said earlier that I doubt Clinton supporters were behind it. Other posts have reached similar conclusions.

Since you do not quote any particularly post, and the posts immediately prior to yours' do not blame Clinton supporters either, you appear to be directing this comment at the thread in general- in which case it is, of course, false.

So spare us your agenda, your faux righteous indignation, and your dishonesty.

To even mention Clinton supporters means you considered it. Which it batshit insane.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, somebody did it, and given that it was targeting a political candidate, a political motive seems plausible. And Sanders' main political opponents at the moment are the Clinton camp.

However, as I said, small-scale domestic terrorism isn't the usual modus operandi of centrist establishment Democrats.

However, I don't think considering the possibility is "batshit insane". It might be if I was suggesting that the Clinton campaign might have been behind it, but I certainly am not. However, I can at least conceive the possibility that there's one random Clinton supporter out of millions who's nuts enough to do this.

But its all just speculation unless someone is caught and convicted.

[Flagg]

Well, somebody did it, and given that it was targeting a political candidate, a political motive seems plausible. And Sanders' main political opponents at the moment are the Clinton camp.

However, as I said, small-scale domestic terrorism isn't the usual modus operandi of centrist establishment Democrats.

However, I don't think considering the possibility is "batshit insane". It might be if I was suggesting that the Clinton campaign might have been behind it, but I certainly am not. However, I can at least conceive the possibility that there's one random Clinton supporter out of millions who's nuts enough to do this.

But its all just speculation unless someone is caught and convicted.

Baker act. It's a fact, jack.