This is what anti-fascism and anti-racism look like. You don't let white supremacists start up social networks to network and align and recruit new followers, then just wring your hands and wonder...
This is what anti-fascism and anti-racism look like. You don't let white supremacists start up social networks to network and align and recruit new followers, then just wring your hands and wonder what a bad sign this is. You act against it, you combat it, you stop it. We aren't powerless against Neo-Nazis. When we fight, we show people what is right, and we win.
A lot of people jump real quickly to "if you support this, you're as bad as they are" which, no, this is not comparable to being a white supremacist. And then a lot of people are jumping to making...
A lot of people jump real quickly to "if you support this, you're as bad as they are" which, no, this is not comparable to being a white supremacist. And then a lot of people are jumping to making this the equivalent of murder. As in if you're ok with one "bad" thing you must be ok with the "worst" bad thing. Or that we should in fact do mass murder to be ethically consistent. ETA: and now genocide comparisons.
This is not the trolley problem. This is a question of ethics but not a theoretical one. This is not about mass murder.
Can we keep some level of perspective here? These are not the first people who have been doxxed on the internet, I don't want people to threaten these people, but I personally don't mind them being mocked. We'll all have different lines there. But like damn, very little makes me go "this is absolutely unreasonable" on this site and this whole thread is it.
I'm not so sure this is worth celebrating. I'm confident the white suppremacist wouldn't hesitate if given the opportunity to do the same to others... And yet doing it preemptively to them feels...
I'm not so sure this is worth celebrating.
I'm confident the white suppremacist wouldn't hesitate if given the opportunity to do the same to others... And yet doing it preemptively to them feels dirty. Doesn't this put us on the same level than them, our tribe vs their tribe.
Obviously I wouldn't care about tarnishing our self image if it was to protect someone from harm, but really, shutting down a dating website or similar is hardly that. This is just harrasment, done to a group who probably deserve it, yes, but still just harrassment.
I am not looking forward to being "that guy who defended nazis" but since no one steps forward...
Like my Grandfather, I think attacking Nazi's is worth celebrating. Nazi's should be afraid to exist. Their very existence should be a threat to their existence.
Like my Grandfather, I think attacking Nazi's is worth celebrating.
Nazi's should be afraid to exist. Their very existence should be a threat to their existence.
I don't know where they are. I honestly have asked myself what I would do if I was driving down the street and saw a parade of Nazi flying flags. I can't say I would not drive into them. Why would...
I don't know where they are.
I honestly have asked myself what I would do if I was driving down the street and saw a parade of Nazi flying flags. I can't say I would not drive into them.
Because violence against an outgroup often feels very legitimate. If you tolerate killing nazis, you'll soon find yourself thinking whoever you want to kill are Nazis, or close enough. I...
Because violence against an outgroup often feels very legitimate.
If you tolerate killing nazis, you'll soon find yourself thinking whoever you want to kill are Nazis, or close enough.
I personally don't go around killing whoever I disagree with because I don't trust myself to truly judge people who annoy me. (Obviously unless in an emergency, war, self defense or other "no more social contract" kind of situation)
Nazi's aren't an out-group. Advertising that one is a Nazi, makes them a Nazi. Associating with Nazi's, makes one an Nazi. Wearing a swastika or SS logo makes one a Nazi. Waving Nazi flags makes...
Nazi's aren't an out-group.
Advertising that one is a Nazi, makes them a Nazi. Associating with Nazi's, makes one an Nazi. Wearing a swastika or SS logo makes one a Nazi. Waving Nazi flags makes one a Nazi.
Nazi's are Nazis. You seem absolutely certain that you need to sit here and defend people who celebrate the historical murder of millions. Maybe they're just misguided.
Because people change? People are often products of their environment? Because people who have shit views but are not taking violent action on it probably doing need to be met with random murder?...
Because people change? People are often products of their environment? Because people who have shit views but are not taking violent action on it probably doing need to be met with random murder? Because it probably makes things worse?
Let me ask at what age is it ok to kill a Nazi? I mean that 6 year old isn’t going to be thrilled you ran down his parents right?
Uh huh. So if killing someone maybe saves 1000 other people it’s justified. So if your family/friends/children voted the wrong way off with their head?
Uh huh. So if killing someone maybe saves 1000 other people it’s justified.
So if your family/friends/children voted the wrong way off with their head?
This strays into the paradox of intolerance. Nazi speech is, by definition, hate speech, and so it is not protected by first amendment rights. Also, your argument assumes that this is occurring...
This strays into the paradox of intolerance. Nazi speech is, by definition, hate speech, and so it is not protected by first amendment rights. Also, your argument assumes that this is occurring within the United States. I do support the application of the first amendment worldwide, but it still has limits.
Hey so hate speech is absolutely protected by the first amendment. People can say slurs, curse, all of that and it's very broadly covered except for a very narrow category of direct threats and...
Hey so hate speech is absolutely protected by the first amendment. People can say slurs, curse, all of that and it's very broadly covered except for a very narrow category of direct threats and incitement to violence (and these have gotten narrower under the supreme court.
Other countries have stricter laws against certain types of speech, and there are pros and cons to both. But hateful rhetoric is not against the law in the US.
The paradox of intolerance applies in other, non-governmental - spaces.
Thanks for making the distinction between hate speech and threats/incitement to violence. I definitely conflated those two when I probably shouldn't have. I think it should still be brought up. If...
Hey so hate speech is absolutely protected by the first amendment.
Thanks for making the distinction between hate speech and threats/incitement to violence. I definitely conflated those two when I probably shouldn't have.
The paradox of intolerance applies in other, non-governmental - spaces.
I think it should still be brought up. If someone's argument in favor of a statement is the first amendment, it's admission that their best defense for it is that it's not illegal. Just because something is legal to say doesn't mean it should be acceptable. Hate speech is an easy item to categorize as unacceptable, but I acknowledge the slippery slope of political motivation to put other speech in that category (e.g. conservatives acting like being LGBT+ is a problem).
Yeah, I've been seriously reviewing an emigration to Canada. And as a result of that, seriously reviewing the rights and laws of Commonwealth of Nations states. I am, generally speaking, a pretty...
Yeah, I've been seriously reviewing an emigration to Canada. And as a result of that, seriously reviewing the rights and laws of Commonwealth of Nations states. I am, generally speaking, a pretty solid fan of the Bill of Rights.
Fundamentally, I do believe in freedom of speech as an inalienable right. And I believe in that for all persons regardless of their place of birth.
There's something rather honorable about proclaiming that rights are endowed onto us by our existence ('our creator') as opposed to bought by money or deigned onto us by states.
But, shit, yeah, we can just run all that over because we don't like what they have to say and they're not United States citizens in this hypothetical. Stunt on those hoes.
Even though I hate white supremacist views, I don't think this is the right way to deal with the problem. IMHO, either their views are sufficiently detrimental to society to be forbidden to be...
Even though I hate white supremacist views, I don't think this is the right way to deal with the problem. IMHO, either their views are sufficiently detrimental to society to be forbidden to be broadcasted on the public square, in which case the justice system/executive should deal with it. Or, the websites should stay online and not face attacks from random people.
While outlawing this kind of content would be an infringement to freedom of speech, I do think this can be morally justified. Even in the US, where freedom of speech is often said to be great, there are numerous restrictions to it: defamation, copyright, trade secrets, national security, terrorist threats, false advertising, etc.
There are obviously more nuances to be had in cases where such content is hosted in a country that doesn't want to censor it.
If given the chance they would violently round up anyone deemed undesirable and send them to a torture prison in el Salvador without trial. And that's just what's been confirmed so far. Taking...
If given the chance they would violently round up anyone deemed undesirable and send them to a torture prison in el Salvador without trial. And that's just what's been confirmed so far. Taking down a website does not remotely bring anyone "down to their level".
I believe the hacker in question is under the impression, apparently with some evidence, that these are more than just simple dating sites. It's an attempt to build a grassroots neo-Nazi network...
I believe the hacker in question is under the impression, apparently with some evidence, that these are more than just simple dating sites. It's an attempt to build a grassroots neo-Nazi network which can be mobilised for... well, Nazi shit. Y'know, all that actual real-world harmful stuff they like to do.
Taking this network down and exposing it's members is worth celebrating. It is protecting people from harm.
I'm not sure what being on a different "level" would achieve. Just letting these chucklefucks carry on while we occupy the moral high ground has so far led to.. well.. look around you. There are fascist scum crawling all over the place these days.
The article linked is not very in depth. Try this one and also watch the videos Martha Root put out. There's more information out there. A signal group is how you organise an existing, small,...
The article linked is not very in depth. Try this one and also watch the videos Martha Root put out. There's more information out there.
A signal group is how you organise an existing, small, group of people, sure. A social network with thousands of users is a whole different thing. To put it in black hat terms - a signal group is C&C, the dating site is the botnet. Memetically compromising thousands of people to effect low-level societal influence is not that far off running a botnet tbh. Also I didn't say it was a well executed plan. Rather the opposite. Don't forget these people are largely absolute fucking idiots. They are not thinking this through. The owner of WhiteDate et al lives at home with her parents. There was a public-facing url on her website to download all user data. You know, morons.
You don't have to step forward to defend Nazis. You just don't. You don't have to celebrate that their website(s) were taken down, but you certainly do not ever need to defend them.
I am not looking forward to being "that guy who defended nazis" but since no one steps forward...
You don't have to step forward to defend Nazis. You just don't.
You don't have to celebrate that their website(s) were taken down, but you certainly do not ever need to defend them.
This is what anti-fascism and anti-racism look like. You don't let white supremacists start up social networks to network and align and recruit new followers, then just wring your hands and wonder what a bad sign this is. You act against it, you combat it, you stop it. We aren't powerless against Neo-Nazis. When we fight, we show people what is right, and we win.
A lot of people jump real quickly to "if you support this, you're as bad as they are" which, no, this is not comparable to being a white supremacist. And then a lot of people are jumping to making this the equivalent of murder. As in if you're ok with one "bad" thing you must be ok with the "worst" bad thing. Or that we should in fact do mass murder to be ethically consistent. ETA: and now genocide comparisons.
This is not the trolley problem. This is a question of ethics but not a theoretical one. This is not about mass murder.
Can we keep some level of perspective here? These are not the first people who have been doxxed on the internet, I don't want people to threaten these people, but I personally don't mind them being mocked. We'll all have different lines there. But like damn, very little makes me go "this is absolutely unreasonable" on this site and this whole thread is it.
I'm not so sure this is worth celebrating.
I'm confident the white suppremacist wouldn't hesitate if given the opportunity to do the same to others... And yet doing it preemptively to them feels dirty. Doesn't this put us on the same level than them, our tribe vs their tribe.
Obviously I wouldn't care about tarnishing our self image if it was to protect someone from harm, but really, shutting down a dating website or similar is hardly that. This is just harrasment, done to a group who probably deserve it, yes, but still just harrassment.
I am not looking forward to being "that guy who defended nazis" but since no one steps forward...
Like my Grandfather, I think attacking Nazi's is worth celebrating.
Nazi's should be afraid to exist. Their very existence should be a threat to their existence.
I disagree.
But let's explore this. I assume you don't go around shooting up nazi's at night... Why not?
I don't know where they are.
I honestly have asked myself what I would do if I was driving down the street and saw a parade of Nazi flying flags. I can't say I would not drive into them.
Why would you let them live?
Because violence against an outgroup often feels very legitimate.
If you tolerate killing nazis, you'll soon find yourself thinking whoever you want to kill are Nazis, or close enough.
I personally don't go around killing whoever I disagree with because I don't trust myself to truly judge people who annoy me. (Obviously unless in an emergency, war, self defense or other "no more social contract" kind of situation)
Nazi's aren't an out-group.
Advertising that one is a Nazi, makes them a Nazi. Associating with Nazi's, makes one an Nazi. Wearing a swastika or SS logo makes one a Nazi. Waving Nazi flags makes one a Nazi.
Nazi's are Nazis. You seem absolutely certain that you need to sit here and defend people who celebrate the historical murder of millions. Maybe they're just misguided.
Because people change? People are often products of their environment? Because people who have shit views but are not taking violent action on it probably doing need to be met with random murder? Because it probably makes things worse?
Let me ask at what age is it ok to kill a Nazi? I mean that 6 year old isn’t going to be thrilled you ran down his parents right?
Killing that 6 year old's parent, might mean that I saved the live of 1000 black kids parents.
Simple trolley problem if you ask me.
Uh huh. So if killing someone maybe saves 1000 other people it’s justified.
So if your family/friends/children voted the wrong way off with their head?
You seem to be unfamiliar with both the Trolley Problem, and how voting works.
Very familiar with both. Just surprised you seem to have the same view of the problem that Israel does with Palestine
Because I believe in the first amendment. Holy shit.
This strays into the paradox of intolerance. Nazi speech is, by definition, hate speech, and so it is not protected by first amendment rights. Also, your argument assumes that this is occurring within the United States. I do support the application of the first amendment worldwide, but it still has limits.
Hey so hate speech is absolutely protected by the first amendment. People can say slurs, curse, all of that and it's very broadly covered except for a very narrow category of direct threats and incitement to violence (and these have gotten narrower under the supreme court.
Other countries have stricter laws against certain types of speech, and there are pros and cons to both. But hateful rhetoric is not against the law in the US.
The paradox of intolerance applies in other, non-governmental - spaces.
Thanks for making the distinction between hate speech and threats/incitement to violence. I definitely conflated those two when I probably shouldn't have.
I think it should still be brought up. If someone's argument in favor of a statement is the first amendment, it's admission that their best defense for it is that it's not illegal. Just because something is legal to say doesn't mean it should be acceptable. Hate speech is an easy item to categorize as unacceptable, but I acknowledge the slippery slope of political motivation to put other speech in that category (e.g. conservatives acting like being LGBT+ is a problem).
America is not the world.
Yeah, I've been seriously reviewing an emigration to Canada. And as a result of that, seriously reviewing the rights and laws of Commonwealth of Nations states. I am, generally speaking, a pretty solid fan of the Bill of Rights.
Fundamentally, I do believe in freedom of speech as an inalienable right. And I believe in that for all persons regardless of their place of birth.
There's something rather honorable about proclaiming that rights are endowed onto us by our existence ('our creator') as opposed to bought by money or deigned onto us by states.
But, shit, yeah, we can just run all that over because we don't like what they have to say and they're not United States citizens in this hypothetical. Stunt on those hoes.
Even though I hate white supremacist views, I don't think this is the right way to deal with the problem. IMHO, either their views are sufficiently detrimental to society to be forbidden to be broadcasted on the public square, in which case the justice system/executive should deal with it. Or, the websites should stay online and not face attacks from random people.
While outlawing this kind of content would be an infringement to freedom of speech, I do think this can be morally justified. Even in the US, where freedom of speech is often said to be great, there are numerous restrictions to it: defamation, copyright, trade secrets, national security, terrorist threats, false advertising, etc.
There are obviously more nuances to be had in cases where such content is hosted in a country that doesn't want to censor it.
What's the solution there when the justice system/executive are the white supremacists, and show no respect for the rule of law?
If given the chance they would violently round up anyone deemed undesirable and send them to a torture prison in el Salvador without trial. And that's just what's been confirmed so far. Taking down a website does not remotely bring anyone "down to their level".
I believe the hacker in question is under the impression, apparently with some evidence, that these are more than just simple dating sites. It's an attempt to build a grassroots neo-Nazi network which can be mobilised for... well, Nazi shit. Y'know, all that actual real-world harmful stuff they like to do.
Taking this network down and exposing it's members is worth celebrating. It is protecting people from harm.
I'm not sure what being on a different "level" would achieve. Just letting these chucklefucks carry on while we occupy the moral high ground has so far led to.. well.. look around you. There are fascist scum crawling all over the place these days.
I didn't read about this in the article.
Why would they use a dating app to network, a signal group would work so much better and be so much easier...
The article linked is not very in depth. Try this one and also watch the videos Martha Root put out. There's more information out there.
A signal group is how you organise an existing, small, group of people, sure. A social network with thousands of users is a whole different thing. To put it in black hat terms - a signal group is C&C, the dating site is the botnet. Memetically compromising thousands of people to effect low-level societal influence is not that far off running a botnet tbh. Also I didn't say it was a well executed plan. Rather the opposite. Don't forget these people are largely absolute fucking idiots. They are not thinking this through. The owner of WhiteDate et al lives at home with her parents. There was a public-facing url on her website to download all user data. You know, morons.
I'd like to introduce you to The Alt-Right Playbook: You Go High, We Go Low
Have you heard about the tribalism playbook: let's all go low since they'll go low.
"let's go cyber-vandalism low since they've already gone mass-scale-racialised-state-violence low" isn't as catchy but more accurate.
So because white supremacists want to kill minorities we should be okay with it because... we're better than them morally?
Are you under the impression that being against Nazis is mere "tribalism"?
You don't have to step forward to defend Nazis. You just don't.
You don't have to celebrate that their website(s) were taken down, but you certainly do not ever need to defend them.
There's a deeper dive into this, including some video from CCC here