The article buries the lede: The threat has changed, but we're still thinking about this in terms of "gun violence". Stochastic or not, this is organized terrorism -- violence against civilians...
The article buries the lede:
Until law enforcement, and the media, treat these shooters as part of a terrorist movement no less organized, or deadly, than ISIS or Al Qaeda, the violence will continue.
The threat has changed, but we're still thinking about this in terms of "gun violence".
Stochastic or not, this is organized terrorism -- violence against civilians with a political objective.
The political objective is to subvert liberal democracy in favor of right-wing authoritarian white nationalism.
It's difficult to see how government and law enforcement can effectively counter this threat when so many leaders, officers and citizens tacitly or even overtly support that political objective.
And it's especially worrying when the president is engaging in stochastic terrorism (not that he's an aberration among the GOP) and has toyed with the idea of classifying Antifa as terrorists. And...
And it's especially worrying when the president is engaging in stochastic terrorism (not that he's an aberration among the GOP) and has toyed with the idea of classifying Antifa as terrorists.
And to be clear, even if you don't agree with black bloc tactics, the things the right complains about are already illegal, and Antifa isn't an organization. That gives a tremendous amount of power to, say, right-wing government and law enforcement to punish anti-fascist demonstrations as being extra criminal.
at this point if someone is honestly more concerned with whatever antifa does than right-wing violence when we've had two white-supremacy related mass shootings in one week killing 23 people, they...
And to be clear, even if you don't agree with black bloc tactics, the things the right complains about are already illegal, and Antifa isn't an organization. That gives a tremendous amount of power to, say, right-wing government and law enforcement to punish anti-fascist demonstrations as being extra criminal.
at this point if someone is honestly more concerned with whatever antifa does than right-wing violence when we've had two white-supremacy related mass shootings in one week killing 23 people, they should just be ignored because there is no way anybody can credibly be like that at this point. there is one side that is the problem, and certainly it's not the antifascists here.
(oh also, if you don't want antifascists, folks: do something about the fascists. weirdly enough, antifa only exists where fascism does, so if you deal with the fascism you also deal with the antifascism)
Absolutely. The only reason I even phrased it the way I did was to preempt and cut off the concern trolling and equivocation I've seen in other online communities. (Any times I've talked to...
Absolutely. The only reason I even phrased it the way I did was to preempt and cut off the concern trolling and equivocation I've seen in other online communities. (Any times I've talked to someone deeply troubled by Antifa, it took very little pressing for them to reveal that they were purely concerned with Antifa, and tacitly or explicitly in support of the far right.) There's really no comparison between fascists and Antifa, either in their means or their ends.
But is it organised? Organisation implies an organiser (in the case of organised crime, for instance, there's a "godfather" figure pulling the strings). Who is organising these attacks? I'm not...
But is it organised? Organisation implies an organiser (in the case of organised crime, for instance, there's a "godfather" figure pulling the strings). Who is organising these attacks?
I'm not sure that these attacks are organised - any more than the various terrorism attacks inspired by the Islamic State are organised. In both cases, there is a central group spouting an extremist ideology, but that central group isn't organising the terrorism that's done in the name of that ideology. That's up to random individuals who become radicalised (usually by themselves, through material they find on the internet). Those random individuals then decide, of their own volition, to commit an act of terror - often without the knowledge of the central group. The planning of the terrorism is determined by the individual (or, occasionally, the small group of individuals).
I agree there are extremist groups ultimately behind all these attacks, and those groups need to be addressed as the motivation for terrorism, but I'm not sure the attacks themselves are organised, as such.
EDIT: changed "with" to "without" in "often without the knowledge of the central group" - a very important oversight on my part.
I think this might be an intermediate stage. We're clearly past completely independent and dissimilar events, but it's also clearly not centralized. In this intermediate place, vehicles like the...
But is it organised?
I think this might be an intermediate stage. We're clearly past completely independent and dissimilar events, but it's also clearly not centralized. In this intermediate place, vehicles like the Internet, certain politicians, etc, start creating a kind of "mobilizing platform" that could create an opportunity for someone to become the organizer.
That's an interesting theory. However, even so, each current terrorism event in the USA is individually organised, and there is no central coordination or planning of these events.
That's an interesting theory.
However, even so, each current terrorism event in the USA is individually organised, and there is no central coordination or planning of these events.
Just because there's no military-style hierarchy or chain of command doesn't mean there's no organization. A lot of white supremacist literature (nsfw.hate) describes how to build leaderless...
Organisation implies an organiser
Just because there's no military-style hierarchy or chain of command doesn't mean there's no organization.
They coordinate indirectly by studying the details of previous attacks and then "innovating" to produce larger body counts and more spectacular media extravaganzas.
They coordinate directly online, sharing ideology, radicalizing each other, and iterating on manifestoes.
They used Discord to orchestrate the Charlottesville violence and media strategy.
And they recruit openly with marches, public speeches, and their own social networks. By articulating a vision, they guide their followers to the Schelling point without traditional command and control.
This is why deplatforming is so important, to deny them legitimacy and reach, and to disrupt their organizing and recruiting apparatus.
The term stochastic terrorism is being thrown around a lot. Basically it’s willfully spreading messaging and propaganda in the hopes that a troubled individual will be sufficiently moved by it to...
That's an interesting concept, because it requires individuals in the adequately bad mental state (not just bad, but it needs to be in a specific way) to succeed.
That's an interesting concept, because it requires individuals in the adequately bad mental state (not just bad, but it needs to be in a specific way) to succeed.
Yup, and that usually comes from a combination of social isolation, general self-loathing, and being steeped in an environment that enflames the perception of grievance against others. One of the...
Yup, and that usually comes from a combination of social isolation, general self-loathing, and being steeped in an environment that enflames the perception of grievance against others.
One of the big tells is when people are unable to maintain healthy personal relationships, which is why domestic violence/partner abuse appear so often in the backgrounds of these mass-shooters. If their resentments are normalized and ignored rather than viewed as a red flag that we need to intervene and teach them healthier coping strategies we could head some of this off, but that would involve not writing off these sorts of behaviors and also keeping them away from engaging with things that sell them on the delusion of redemptive violence, which is something that the marketing around gun culture are chock-a-block full with.
8chan's founder confirmed that the manifesto is real, and denounced the shooting. He actually urged the current site owner to shut off the site in a rather crudely worded statement. I wouldn't be...
I wouldn't be surprised if 8chan ended up shutting down within the next year, whether through Jim Watkins voluntarily shutting down the servers, or through a FBI raid.
8chan is based in the phillippines or something like that, so no, that's not likely to happen. they'll comply with the law, just like they've done in the past, and nothing more. jim is also not...
whether through Jim Watkins voluntarily shutting down the servers, or through a FBI raid.
8chan is based in the phillippines or something like that, so no, that's not likely to happen. they'll comply with the law, just like they've done in the past, and nothing more. jim is also not likely to shut off the servers--he couldn't give less of a fuck and in any case is probably sympathetic to the beliefs of most of these people. if it shuts down, it's most likely going to be over funding.
I wouldn't be so sure. For a while we were good allies with the Philippines. And shutting down a website being hosted in an allied country is something that we've already done in the case of...
I wouldn't be so sure. For a while we were good allies with the Philippines. And shutting down a website being hosted in an allied country is something that we've already done in the case of Megauploads.
I think it will depend a lot on our future relations with the Philippines, and how determined the US is to shut 8chan down. But given the current political climate...who knows if they are at all.
the answer is not at all under the current administration, and in any case the phillippines is currently run by a right-wing populist whose policies include genociding (or trying to, anyways) all...
and how determined the US is to shut 8chan down.
the answer is not at all under the current administration, and in any case the phillippines is currently run by a right-wing populist whose policies include genociding (or trying to, anyways) all the "drug dealers" and degenerates in his country, so i mean...
I dunno... Duerte has tried to make changes to free speech laws in the Phillippines, by emphasising that only "responsible free speech" should be protected. If that goes through, it would give...
8chan's service has just been terminated by cloudflare, after previously stating this morning they would not do so (and only changing course about an hour ago).
I'll just quote the top comment in the original article, it's pretty spot-on:
I'll just quote the top comment in the original article, it's pretty spot-on:
The common theme for these murders is the lack of hope in a viable future. That is the root of this organism. Chopping down the branches won’t keep it from growing back. We need to create a climate of hope for our own citizens if we want to put a stop to the violence.
In his manifesto, the shooter explicitly reveals himself as eco-fascist, exactly like the Christchurch shooter. He details how he believes that only by driving out minorities can we instate things...
In his manifesto, the shooter explicitly reveals himself as eco-fascist, exactly like the Christchurch shooter.
He details how he believes that only by driving out minorities can we instate things like UBI and universal healthcare. He also stated that he believes this is the only way to ensure that people can continue to exist in a world of hyper-automation.
Now tell me how this doesn't fit exactly into Andrew Yang's support on 4chan and 8chan?
All of the Yang Gang who swarmed on my last comments about white nationalist support on the Dem Debate thread better think long and hard about their continued denials.
They make up a large portion of his supporters online. They meme about him just like they did Trump. And it's painfully obvious to anyone with eyes that shilling is out in droves for him. Every...
They make up a large portion of his supporters online. They meme about him just like they did Trump. And it's painfully obvious to anyone with eyes that shilling is out in droves for him. Every comment seems to have the exact same talking points that read like they've got a go-to list of talking points.
His plan is far from detailed. He shifts the logical basis of his arguments almost constantly, and points to examples of "success" that, when examined, reveal anything but.
Seriously, this is yet another example of the Yang Gang descending on a conversation about a topic and then immediately spewing the same list of talking points instead of addressing the critique in front of them.
No shit. Yang is an attempt to shoehorn Socialism into Capitalism. It's Socialism-lite for folks who are afraid of socialism. In fact, his UBI plan has so many angles of attack that either a)...
I don't think anything is going to change your mind about Yang. You bring him up wherever possible and just dismiss his talking points in the same way you claim the "Yang Gang" does.
No shit. Yang is an attempt to shoehorn Socialism into Capitalism. It's Socialism-lite for folks who are afraid of socialism. In fact, his UBI plan has so many angles of attack that either a) it'll be dismantled the moment a Republican comes back into office, income source by income source or b) it'll be capitalized on to essentially price out noncitizens from being able to live in the US.
And the fact that people recite the same talking points again and again but refuse to even remotely acknowledge the downsides of his platform show me that they're not in this for reasoned debate. They're just riding the Yang Gang train.
saying that the majority of his online supporters are members of the far-right
Oh hey another strawman! Quote me then. Where did I say the majority of his supporters online were members of the far-right? I said "a large portion" were "channers". Quit twisting my words.
I'm not an avid supporter of Yang
I mean you do seem to show up conveniently in comment sections where he's discussed, and you have a habit of twisting others' words during said conversations, just like you did now.
The list provided could be equally applied to Bernie or Warren. The idea that Yang is "relatable" is only because he's fostered such a close relationship with online communities.
Hey, it's a highly upvoted comment that addresses a strawman! Which strawman, you might ask? This one! Nobody said specifically. But he has absolutely no response to the fact that his policies are...
Hey, it's a highly upvoted comment that addresses a strawman! Which strawman, you might ask? This one!
But there are plenty of other people who support his policies for different reasons, so I highly doubt that Yang aims to appeal to the crazies specifically.
Nobody said specifically. But he has absolutely no response to the fact that his policies are supported by the far-right in their desire to create an ethnostate. And his UBI plan has so many angles of attack that if it ever does get implemented, it'll be defunded within 4 years.
The fact of the matter is that there is a large group of people online who are trying to meme him to the White House just like they did Trump, and if he doesn't have a way of preventing white nationalists from hijacking his ideas, then he really is just enabling them.
Do they provide logical and reasonable discussions surrounding why eating mollusks marinated in Mountain Dew would advance their white nationalist agenda? Yes? Then perhaps we need to question why...
Suppose Gary Busey argues on CNN that everyone should eat mollusks marinated in Mountain Dew. If some white nationalists agree with Busey and meme his televised suggestion on some message boards, then can we logically assume that Busey is enabling them? No.
Do they provide logical and reasonable discussions surrounding why eating mollusks marinated in Mountain Dew would advance their white nationalist agenda?
Yes? Then perhaps we need to question why Gary Busey is advocating eating mollusks marinated in Mountain Dew and have a discussion about how to prevent white nationalists from taking advantage of Mollusks a la Dew.
And what if Busey "has no response to the fact" that white nationalists want everyone to eat mollusks marinated in Mountain Dew? Still no.
Seriously? Is Trump not responsible for enabling his followers when they take his words to mean that white people should "take back their country"?
Furthermore, that question is loaded in that it assumes 1) Yang has a white nationalist following worth mentioning, and 2) he is aware of it.
His rise to fame occurred primarily on 4chan's /pol/ board. This is cited in the Yang Gang Know Your Meme page. He has cultivated a strong online presence, including hiring firms to push his campaign on social media.
You really ought to enumerate your reasons and evidence asserting how Andrew Yang is associated with the far right in a separate and dedicated post, because I can guarantee you I'm not the only person who thinks this is ridiculously off-topic.
It's like you completely ignore that the El Paso shooter's manifesto contains full-throated approval of a UBI and universal healthcare. This bears talking about.
Also it's bizarre to me that you immediately get 2 upvotes mere minutes after posting in the bottom of a thread.
Are you not seeing the parallels of his online following and Trump's?
Most people use one of the activity-based sortings, so topics bump back to the top of the page when there's a new comment, and lots of people have new comment marking enabled, which makes it so...
Also it's bizarre to me that you immediately get 2 upvotes mere minutes after posting in the bottom of a thread.
Most people use one of the activity-based sortings, so topics bump back to the top of the page when there's a new comment, and lots of people have new comment marking enabled, which makes it so only the new comments are shown when you go back into a thread. Between those, new comments on Tildes are much, much more visible than they are on reddit, and it's not uncommon at all for them to get votes immediately.
And while I'm here: tone down the antagonism. I'm close to wiping out this whole chain because it's barely on-topic in the first place and seems to mostly have been intended as argument bait.
It was intended as a conversation around the shooter's manifesto. We cannot continue to assume that these people are simply disturbed to the point of being illogical, such that they latch onto any...
It was intended as a conversation around the shooter's manifesto. We cannot continue to assume that these people are simply disturbed to the point of being illogical, such that they latch onto any strong voice they see in the media.
It's an entire worldview, an entire logical train of thought, that causes them to believe what they believe. And if we suddenly see a surge of people supporting a candidate whose policies line up with that train of thought, mostly online, then we must have a discussion about the parallels.
I am not trying to have an argument, I'm trying to have a conversation. The Yang Gang just can't help but turn a discussion into an argument by twisting my words.
If we believe that Trump is responsible for feeding his followers and instating policy that is beneficial to his followers, then we must also discuss how our candidates might end up feeding white nationalists and work to prevent them from doing so, especially in a climate where a person literally said that they supported UBI and universal healthcare....once all the non-whites were gone.
If I appear antagonistic, it's because I'm tired of the swarm of Yang supporters that descends on any and all discussion about him or his policies, and I'm also angry that I tried discussing this following and the fact that they support him for the aforementioned reasons, but it was immediately dismissed by Yang supporters.
Sure enough, mere days later, here are some of his major talking points surrounding automation, joblessness, UBI, and universal healthcare, used in a justification for a mass murder.
But fine. I'll take a break. Do what you feel is best. This is your site after all.
That hasn't proven true for Trump, has it? The logic here is that somehow Yang isn't at all responsible for his proposed policies supporting white nationalist's ideas of how the world should work,...
That hasn't proven true for Trump, has it?
The logic here is that somehow Yang isn't at all responsible for his proposed policies supporting white nationalist's ideas of how the world should work, but Trump is.
Personally I do agree that we have too many people which is putting a strain on the environment and our ecology, but frankly in my view the blame for that lies mostly with first-world nations that...
Personally I do agree that we have too many people which is putting a strain on the environment and our ecology, but frankly in my view the blame for that lies mostly with first-world nations that have enriched themselves to the point of excess. I'm not sure why these deluded people want to look towards other humans as the source of their problems, instead of looking up the food chain to the wealthiest 1%. It seems like a weak excuse to advocate for genocide/racial cleansing.
The article buries the lede:
The threat has changed, but we're still thinking about this in terms of "gun violence".
Stochastic or not, this is organized terrorism -- violence against civilians with a political objective.
The political objective is to subvert liberal democracy in favor of right-wing authoritarian white nationalism.
It's difficult to see how government and law enforcement can effectively counter this threat when so many leaders, officers and citizens tacitly or even overtly support that political objective.
And it's especially worrying when the president is engaging in stochastic terrorism (not that he's an aberration among the GOP) and has toyed with the idea of classifying Antifa as terrorists.
And to be clear, even if you don't agree with black bloc tactics, the things the right complains about are already illegal, and Antifa isn't an organization. That gives a tremendous amount of power to, say, right-wing government and law enforcement to punish anti-fascist demonstrations as being extra criminal.
at this point if someone is honestly more concerned with whatever antifa does than right-wing violence when we've had two white-supremacy related mass shootings in one week killing 23 people, they should just be ignored because there is no way anybody can credibly be like that at this point. there is one side that is the problem, and certainly it's not the antifascists here.
(oh also, if you don't want antifascists, folks: do something about the fascists. weirdly enough, antifa only exists where fascism does, so if you deal with the fascism you also deal with the antifascism)
Absolutely. The only reason I even phrased it the way I did was to preempt and cut off the concern trolling and equivocation I've seen in other online communities. (Any times I've talked to someone deeply troubled by Antifa, it took very little pressing for them to reveal that they were purely concerned with Antifa, and tacitly or explicitly in support of the far right.) There's really no comparison between fascists and Antifa, either in their means or their ends.
But is it organised? Organisation implies an organiser (in the case of organised crime, for instance, there's a "godfather" figure pulling the strings). Who is organising these attacks?
I'm not sure that these attacks are organised - any more than the various terrorism attacks inspired by the Islamic State are organised. In both cases, there is a central group spouting an extremist ideology, but that central group isn't organising the terrorism that's done in the name of that ideology. That's up to random individuals who become radicalised (usually by themselves, through material they find on the internet). Those random individuals then decide, of their own volition, to commit an act of terror - often without the knowledge of the central group. The planning of the terrorism is determined by the individual (or, occasionally, the small group of individuals).
I agree there are extremist groups ultimately behind all these attacks, and those groups need to be addressed as the motivation for terrorism, but I'm not sure the attacks themselves are organised, as such.
EDIT: changed "with" to "without" in "often without the knowledge of the central group" - a very important oversight on my part.
I think this might be an intermediate stage. We're clearly past completely independent and dissimilar events, but it's also clearly not centralized. In this intermediate place, vehicles like the Internet, certain politicians, etc, start creating a kind of "mobilizing platform" that could create an opportunity for someone to become the organizer.
That's an interesting theory.
However, even so, each current terrorism event in the USA is individually organised, and there is no central coordination or planning of these events.
If you look on 8chan, the planning and organization are there.
Just because it's decentralized doesn't mean it's unorganized.
Just because there's no military-style hierarchy or chain of command doesn't mean there's no organization.
A lot of white supremacist literature (nsfw.hate) describes how to build leaderless organizations that aren't vulnerable to decapitation attacks.
They coordinate indirectly by studying the details of previous attacks and then "innovating" to produce larger body counts and more spectacular media extravaganzas.
They coordinate directly online, sharing ideology, radicalizing each other, and iterating on manifestoes.
They used Discord to orchestrate the Charlottesville violence and media strategy.
And they recruit openly with marches, public speeches, and their own social networks. By articulating a vision, they guide their followers to the Schelling point without traditional command and control.
This is why deplatforming is so important, to deny them legitimacy and reach, and to disrupt their organizing and recruiting apparatus.
The term stochastic terrorism is being thrown around a lot.
Basically it’s willfully spreading messaging and propaganda in the hopes that a troubled individual will be sufficiently moved by it to take action.
That's an interesting concept, because it requires individuals in the adequately bad mental state (not just bad, but it needs to be in a specific way) to succeed.
Yup, and that usually comes from a combination of social isolation, general self-loathing, and being steeped in an environment that enflames the perception of grievance against others.
One of the big tells is when people are unable to maintain healthy personal relationships, which is why domestic violence/partner abuse appear so often in the backgrounds of these mass-shooters. If their resentments are normalized and ignored rather than viewed as a red flag that we need to intervene and teach them healthier coping strategies we could head some of this off, but that would involve not writing off these sorts of behaviors and also keeping them away from engaging with things that sell them on the delusion of redemptive violence, which is something that the marketing around gun culture are chock-a-block full with.
8chan's founder confirmed that the manifesto is real, and denounced the shooting. He actually urged the current site owner to shut off the site in a rather crudely worded statement.
I wouldn't be surprised if 8chan ended up shutting down within the next year, whether through Jim Watkins voluntarily shutting down the servers, or through a FBI raid.
8chan is based in the phillippines or something like that, so no, that's not likely to happen. they'll comply with the law, just like they've done in the past, and nothing more. jim is also not likely to shut off the servers--he couldn't give less of a fuck and in any case is probably sympathetic to the beliefs of most of these people. if it shuts down, it's most likely going to be over funding.
I wouldn't be so sure. For a while we were good allies with the Philippines. And shutting down a website being hosted in an allied country is something that we've already done in the case of Megauploads.
I think it will depend a lot on our future relations with the Philippines, and how determined the US is to shut 8chan down. But given the current political climate...who knows if they are at all.
the answer is not at all under the current administration, and in any case the phillippines is currently run by a right-wing populist whose policies include genociding (or trying to, anyways) all the "drug dealers" and degenerates in his country, so i mean...
I dunno... Duerte has tried to make changes to free speech laws in the Phillippines, by emphasising that only "responsible free speech" should be protected. If that goes through, it would give Duerte the mandate to take down the site should he wish to.
But would Duerte order a raid on 8chan? Nah, unless they did something to piss him off specifically.
Yeah, I guess I was just saying that I think we COULD do it if the motivation was there, but I agree it's almost certainly not.
And it also depends on if some other country would accept to host it, which is likely.
8chan's service has just been terminated by cloudflare, after previously stating this morning they would not do so (and only changing course about an hour ago).
That's absolutely worth a separate post.
so be it
I'll just quote the top comment in the original article, it's pretty spot-on:
In his manifesto, the shooter explicitly reveals himself as eco-fascist, exactly like the Christchurch shooter.
He details how he believes that only by driving out minorities can we instate things like UBI and universal healthcare. He also stated that he believes this is the only way to ensure that people can continue to exist in a world of hyper-automation.
Now tell me how this doesn't fit exactly into Andrew Yang's support on 4chan and 8chan?
All of the Yang Gang who swarmed on my last comments about white nationalist support on the Dem Debate thread better think long and hard about their continued denials.
His sub exploded out of nowhere on reddit. That guy is a joke of a candidate. Are the chans the reason why?
They make up a large portion of his supporters online. They meme about him just like they did Trump. And it's painfully obvious to anyone with eyes that shilling is out in droves for him. Every comment seems to have the exact same talking points that read like they've got a go-to list of talking points.
His plan is far from detailed. He shifts the logical basis of his arguments almost constantly, and points to examples of "success" that, when examined, reveal anything but.
Seriously, this is yet another example of the Yang Gang descending on a conversation about a topic and then immediately spewing the same list of talking points instead of addressing the critique in front of them.
No shit. Yang is an attempt to shoehorn Socialism into Capitalism. It's Socialism-lite for folks who are afraid of socialism. In fact, his UBI plan has so many angles of attack that either a) it'll be dismantled the moment a Republican comes back into office, income source by income source or b) it'll be capitalized on to essentially price out noncitizens from being able to live in the US.
And the fact that people recite the same talking points again and again but refuse to even remotely acknowledge the downsides of his platform show me that they're not in this for reasoned debate. They're just riding the Yang Gang train.
Oh hey another strawman! Quote me then. Where did I say the majority of his supporters online were members of the far-right? I said "a large portion" were "channers". Quit twisting my words.
I mean you do seem to show up conveniently in comment sections where he's discussed, and you have a habit of twisting others' words during said conversations, just like you did now.
The list provided could be equally applied to Bernie or Warren. The idea that Yang is "relatable" is only because he's fostered such a close relationship with online communities.
https://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-yang-online-memes-2020-fundraising-2019-4
I mean FFS the Yang Gang Know Your Meme page cites 4chan's /pol/ board almost exclusively.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/yang-gang
Let's not pretend like he's completely divorced from his online roots.
I don't tend to treat people charitably who willfully twist my words and then refuse to acknowledge that they've done so.
Legion of Builders and Destroyers? This guy is a wackjob. How the hell protection of MMA fighters a major campaign policy?
This has to be a joke
Hey, it's a highly upvoted comment that addresses a strawman! Which strawman, you might ask? This one!
Nobody said specifically. But he has absolutely no response to the fact that his policies are supported by the far-right in their desire to create an ethnostate. And his UBI plan has so many angles of attack that if it ever does get implemented, it'll be defunded within 4 years.
The fact of the matter is that there is a large group of people online who are trying to meme him to the White House just like they did Trump, and if he doesn't have a way of preventing white nationalists from hijacking his ideas, then he really is just enabling them.
Do they provide logical and reasonable discussions surrounding why eating mollusks marinated in Mountain Dew would advance their white nationalist agenda?
Yes? Then perhaps we need to question why Gary Busey is advocating eating mollusks marinated in Mountain Dew and have a discussion about how to prevent white nationalists from taking advantage of Mollusks a la Dew.
Seriously? Is Trump not responsible for enabling his followers when they take his words to mean that white people should "take back their country"?
His rise to fame occurred primarily on 4chan's /pol/ board. This is cited in the Yang Gang Know Your Meme page. He has cultivated a strong online presence, including hiring firms to push his campaign on social media.
It's like you completely ignore that the El Paso shooter's manifesto contains full-throated approval of a UBI and universal healthcare. This bears talking about.
Also it's bizarre to me that you immediately get 2 upvotes mere minutes after posting in the bottom of a thread.
Are you not seeing the parallels of his online following and Trump's?
Most people use one of the activity-based sortings, so topics bump back to the top of the page when there's a new comment, and lots of people have new comment marking enabled, which makes it so only the new comments are shown when you go back into a thread. Between those, new comments on Tildes are much, much more visible than they are on reddit, and it's not uncommon at all for them to get votes immediately.
And while I'm here: tone down the antagonism. I'm close to wiping out this whole chain because it's barely on-topic in the first place and seems to mostly have been intended as argument bait.
It was intended as a conversation around the shooter's manifesto. We cannot continue to assume that these people are simply disturbed to the point of being illogical, such that they latch onto any strong voice they see in the media.
It's an entire worldview, an entire logical train of thought, that causes them to believe what they believe. And if we suddenly see a surge of people supporting a candidate whose policies line up with that train of thought, mostly online, then we must have a discussion about the parallels.
I am not trying to have an argument, I'm trying to have a conversation. The Yang Gang just can't help but turn a discussion into an argument by twisting my words.
If we believe that Trump is responsible for feeding his followers and instating policy that is beneficial to his followers, then we must also discuss how our candidates might end up feeding white nationalists and work to prevent them from doing so, especially in a climate where a person literally said that they supported UBI and universal healthcare....once all the non-whites were gone.
If I appear antagonistic, it's because I'm tired of the swarm of Yang supporters that descends on any and all discussion about him or his policies, and I'm also angry that I tried discussing this following and the fact that they support him for the aforementioned reasons, but it was immediately dismissed by Yang supporters.
Sure enough, mere days later, here are some of his major talking points surrounding automation, joblessness, UBI, and universal healthcare, used in a justification for a mass murder.
But fine. I'll take a break. Do what you feel is best. This is your site after all.
That hasn't proven true for Trump, has it?
The logic here is that somehow Yang isn't at all responsible for his proposed policies supporting white nationalist's ideas of how the world should work, but Trump is.
I say they're both responsible.
Primarily, yes.
Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly does an "eco-fascist" advocate in favor of?
the same as a regular fascist, but they play up the environmental effects of killing or enslaving all the non-Aryans
Think Thanos: kill half the universe because the ecosystem is overburdened. But unlike Thanos, they think their race (white) should be spared.
Personally I do agree that we have too many people which is putting a strain on the environment and our ecology, but frankly in my view the blame for that lies mostly with first-world nations that have enriched themselves to the point of excess. I'm not sure why these deluded people want to look towards other humans as the source of their problems, instead of looking up the food chain to the wealthiest 1%. It seems like a weak excuse to advocate for genocide/racial cleansing.
Because all they have to their name is the color of their skin. They are losers, pure and simple.
You got it in one.