Internet Vigilantism

[Berzerker]

Actress Jennifer Lawrence seems to be a supporter...

Jennifer Lawrence went one step further than other celebrities in denouncing neo-Nazis and white supremacists who provoked violent and deadly demonstrations in Charlottesville, Va. over the weekend.

“These are the faces of hate. Look closely and post anyone you find. You can’t hide with the internet you pathetic cowards!”

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/...hite-supremacists-at-charlottesville-rallies/

I actually dont have a problem with vigilantism, well, if the guilty are brought to justice I dont much care who delivers them. But I'm not a fan of modern technology being used to attack privacy and expose protesters' identities. Its terrorism... It reminds me of these 'pro-lifers' who publish personal information about abortion providers. They are trying to intimidate people into silence...

Anonymous speech is important... Much of the pre-Revolution literature was related that way and apparently so were parts of the New Testament, criticism of authority often is. I'd like to see how the ACLU responds to both the trouble in Virginia and the hunt for Nazis. What do you think of exposing the protesters? Maybe next time they'll just wear something to cover their heads.

 

[civver_764]

This is brilliant, the Left are alienating people at unprecedented levels. Please keep it up

 

[warpus]

Sounds sketchy, I don't support it. Let the authorities deal with it.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

It is legal to protest but it is also legal to share photos (not protected by copyright) of people. Defamation is illegal but it must be untrue; discrimination, rioting, harassment, violence, murder, and terrorism are all illegal and hate speech is unethical (and against terms of entry at most places).

Therefore, I have nothing against the online counterprotests.

Besides, peaceful protests by progressives or people of color have been met with swat teams and militarized police forces while police officers in Virginia stood by (and occassionally laughed) as xenophobic white supremacists attacked peaceful counterprotesters.

 

[Berzerker]

I noticed the news piece said the violence was provoked... Sounds like blaming the rape victim for her attire

 

[Lexicus]

I noticed the news piece said the violence was provoked... Sounds like blaming the rape victim for her attire

Certainly a contender for Worst Take of August 2017

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Attire as in when you are naked and trying to put on a bra of male hands?

 

[warpus]

It's a good idea in theory, but in practice people often end up going after the wrong person. Maybe it won't happen in this case, but people get confused with other people all the time. There's a good reason why many online communities have rules in place against this sort of thing

 

[cardgame]

Boston Marathon Witch Hunt says all that is needed about internet vigilantism.

 

[Berzerker]

Certainly a contender for Worst Take of August 2017

lol, yeah that was bad

 

[Arwon]

It is legal to protest but it is also legal to share photos (not protected by copyright) of people. Defamation is illegal but it must be untrue; discrimination, rioting, harassment, violence, murder, and terrorism are all illegal and hate speech is unethical (and against terms of entry at most places).

Therefore, I have nothing against the online counterprotests.

Just a note that these mostly vary by country. Especially the bounds of privacy, vilification and defamation.

 

[Lexicus]

lol, yeah that was bad

Don't worry, you'll be narrowly edged out by a Trump tweet.

 

[Perfection]

Disappointing to hear that from her.

 

[Zkribbler]

Boston Marathon Witch Hunt says all that is needed about internet vigilantism.

Reddit incorrectly named an innocent person as a suspect. As a result, his family suffered.

Jennifer Lawrence asked the internet for help in identifying protestors at the alt right demonstration, promising to "make them famous." One such person worked at the Top Dog hotdog stand in San Francisco. Jennifer Lawrence posted this information online. Top Dog's Yelp site was flooded with negative comments. The guy resigned.

Reddit's info was false.
...Jen's was true.
Reddt caused the family pain.
...We don't know why the guy resigned. Perhaps he had a liberal employer who doesn't want alt right people working for him.

Q: If the NY Times had revealed this info, would it be accused of being a vigilante?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

As a writer and pastor, my job is to weave together words so that those words will hopefully reach people in their deepest places; to frame the experience of this life in a way that is somehow compelling or creative or interesting, causing them to engage with the world differently than before.

But there are times when to do this would be actually be a disservice to reality, when any clever wordplay would only soften the jagged, sickening truth; when clever turns of phrase might succeed in obscuring the horrid ugliness in front of us.

Sometimes we just need to say it without adornment or finessing.

What we’ve watched unfolding in Charlottesville, with hundreds of white people bearing torches and chanting about the value of white lives and shouting slurs, is not a “far Right” protest. When you move that far right, past humanity, past decency, past goodness—you’re something else.

You’re not a supremacist, you’re not a nationalist, and you’re not alt-Right.

This is racism.
This is domestic terrorism.
This is religious extremism.
This is bigotry.
It is blind hatred of the most vile kind.
It doesn’t represent America.
It doesn’t represent Jesus.
It doesn’t speak for the majority of white Americans.
It’s a cancerous, terrible, putrid sickness that represents the absolute worst of who we are.

No, naming it won’t change it, but naming it is necessary nonetheless. It’s necessary for us to say it—especially when the media won’t, when our elected leaders won’t, when our President won’t. It’s necessary to condemn it so that we do not become complicit in it.

This is our national History being forged in real-time, and to use words lacking clarity now would be to risk allowing the ugliness off the hook or to create ambiguity that excuses it. And yes, there are all sorts of other ways that racism and privilege live and thrive; ways that are far less obvious or brazen than tiki-torch wielding marches. There are systemic illnesses and structural defects and national blind spots that we need to speak to and keeping pushing back against, and we will. But in moments that are this clear, when the malignancy is so fully on display—we’d better have the guts to say it.

White people especially need to name racism in this hour, because somewhere in that crowd of sweaty, dead-eyed, raw throated white men—are our brothers and cousins and husbands and fathers and children; those we go to church with and see at Little League and in our neighborhoods. They need to be made accountable by those they deem their “own kind.” They need to know that this is not who we are, that we don’t bless or support or respect this. They need white faces speaking directly into their white faces, loudly on behalf of love.

Though all of us can eventually trace our lineage back to oneness, all carrying a varied blood in our veins—the surface level differences matter to these torch-bearers. They value white lives and white voices above anything else, and so we whose pigmentation matches theirs need to speak with unflinching clarity about this or we simply amen it.

So I’m saying it.

We are not with you, torch-bearers, in Charlottesville or anywhere.
We do no consent to this.
In fact we stand against you, alongside the very beautiful diversity that you fear.
We stand with people of every color and of all faiths, people of every orientation, nationality, and native tongue.

We are not going to have this. This is not the country we’ve built together and it will not become what you intend it to become.

So you can kiss our diverse, unified, multi-colored behinds because your racism and your terrorism will not win the day.

Believe it.

Relevant.

 

[Lexicus]

Spoiler :

 

[civver_764]

We are not with you, torch-bearers, in Charlottesville or anywhere.
We do no consent to this.

Who the hell asked this guy? First amendment bruh.

 

[Zkribbler]

Lexicus, land don't vote People do.
civver, John Pavlowitz ain't the government. He can call racists "racists" if he wants to.

 

[civver_764]

Lexicus, land don't vote People do.
civver, John Pavlowitz ain't the government. He can call racists "racists" if he wants to.

Good for him. What a brave guy, expressing the most establishment-approved opinion possible.

 

[innonimatu]

Lexicus, land don't vote People do.

That vast land is actually very relevant. Do you think that shaming tactics will work there? They won't. You may expel the so-called "undesirables" from the urban centers, but you'll only strengthen them throughout the rest of your country, Where they will organize and retaliate.

I don't think that any enemy engaged in undermining the US could do better than this. And it's the US' own politicians doing it, without any need for manipulation from abroad! You're branding others enemies to be destroyed instead of compatriots to be changed. That is fuel for civil war.

Exasperating as arguing with people who blindly hold certain beliefs may be (and I've seen some examples even on this forum), writing them off as enemies will only make sure that they will be enemies. And once the fight is on there will be little opportunity for those engaged to thing thinks over.
Really, there is a lot of irrationality speech and in their beliefs of the "right", not to mention the utter insanity of nazis and such like, but you'll need to allow for the time it'll take for most of those people to become aware that they're not even serving their own best interests though those beliefs. Pick the circumstances to fight over carefully...