Internet Vigilantism

[Ryika]

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.

The main problem I have with it is that they're guaranteed to be utterly incompetent and will damage lives of those who they wrongfully identified. At least that's what happens whenever /pol/ tries to do the same. Not having sympathy for the people involved is one thing, but saying that this is okay means that you're basically fine with the possibility that random people might get harassed, fired, or visited, purely based on accusations from overzealous activists.

/edit: Hardly surprising that after a quick google search I found this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html

 

[Lexicus]

Lexicus, land don't vote People do.

Unfortunately in our system land votes. And afaik a majority of white voters voted for Trump. A fairly substantial majority.

 

[civver_764]

Unfortunately in our system land votes. And afaik a majority of white voters voted for Trump. A fairly substantial majority.

Yup.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

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

As opposed to 'courageous' white supremacists who are crying about being identified on the internet so that they can be dealt with when they aren't in their mob?

Pavlowitz is right, these scum need to be dealt with by their parents, coworkers, pastors, neighbors. That can only happen if they are identified. I suspect that most of them are 'known but ignored,' but the real gutless ones who want to go on their weekend hate sprees and then go about their business during the week as if they weren't white supremacists need calling out.

 

[civver_764]

As opposed to 'courageous' white supremacists who are crying about being identified on the internet so that they can be dealt with when they aren't in their mob?

Pavlowitz is right, these scum need to be dealt with by their parents, coworkers, pastors, neighbors. That can only happen if they are identified. I suspect that most of them are 'known but ignored,' but the real gutless ones who want to go on their weekend hate sprees and then go about their business during the week as if they weren't white supremacists need calling out.

I mean, people are literally sending them death threats so I don't blame them. The left has no arguments, that's why they result to violence and shaming tactics.

I mean your whole jig here is that you want the other side to be too afraid to express their opinions. What does that tell you?

 

[Perfection]

The left has no arguments, that's why they result to violence and shaming tactics.

You come here and debate leftists for hours on end, you've seen first hand that they very often attempt to engage civilly and rationally.

 

[civver_764]

You come here and debate leftists for hours on end, you've seen first hand that they very often attempt to engage civilly and rationally.

True, and how many times have I been called "misogynistic", "bigoted", "white supremacist", "a neo-nazi", "wants poor people to lose health insurance", "wants poor people to not have education" etc? These are the shaming tactics.

Many leftists are great people, no doubt. I'm speaking of "the left" as an abstract concept.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I mean, people are literally sending them death threats so I don't blame them. The left has no arguments, that's why they result to violence and shaming tactics.

I mean your whole jig here is that you want the other side to be too afraid to express their opinions. What does that tell you?

People send me death threats on my local news site, I post an e-mail address so we can set up a meeting.

As to having no arguments, what's the point? White supremacists aren't susceptible to argument. It's like arguing with mad dogs.

 

[cardgame]

I mean, people are literally sending them death threats so I don't blame them. The left has no arguments, that's why they result to violence and shaming tactics.

I mean your whole jig here is that you want the other side to be too afraid to express their opinions. What does that tell you?

Intimidation tactics? How about carrying around torches, in a huge mob, shouting literal Nazi chants (Blood & Soil)?

 

[civver_764]

Intimidation tactics? How about carrying around torches, in a huge mob, shouting literal Nazi chants (Blood & Soil)?

Zomg the Nazis!!! You're telling me that saying "Blood & Soil" is equivalent to advocating for violence? Sorry but that is self-evidently absurd.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Zomg the Nazis!!! You're telling me that saying "Blood & Soil" is equivalent to advocating for violence? Sorry but that is self-evidently absurd.

You're claiming that surrounding people with a torch bearing mob is a sign of their peaceful intent? Well, that's not really a question, since you are, but the question is why do you think anyone should take you seriously?

 

[civver_764]

You're claiming that surrounding people with a torch bearing mob is a sign of their peaceful intent?

If they didn't have a peaceful intent, why are the people they surrounded still alive? Fake news.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Actress Jennifer Lawrence seems to be a supporter...





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.

I've heard different versions of whether or not the protest was legal. If it was, then they had the right to be there. If not, they broke the law and should be identified.

I went on a couple of protests, one back in 1979 and the other in the early '80s. I was seen on TV in the first one (my grandmother said she couldn't miss my winter coat, since it was completely unlike anyone else's) and was interviewed by a reporter at the other.

The first one was not a legal protest, but the second was. In neither case did anyone get violent or commit vandalism. The second protest led to a petition, which gained enough signatures to present to the City Council... and it was granted. There is now a plaque in City Hall Park commemorating this.


So my only personal experience of protests have been peaceful ones - apt, since the second one was a peace protest (remember, this was during the Cold War, and Ronald Reagan kept shooting his mouth off about using nukes).

The internet is a valuable tool when it yields accurate information. That's one reason why, when I log off tonight, I'm going to be writing out a statement so the property management company can evict the soon-to-be-ex-tenant who tried to push his way into my suite a few weeks ago (those who regularly participate in the Random Rants threads will have read about this). The manager here happened to be browsing Facebook and discovered that I'm not the first woman he did this with... he did actually get into the first one's suite, and trying to get into mine is going to land him in deeper legal trouble since it was a breach of the conditions imposed by the judge the last time.

I have no idea how this is all going to end - his eviction will be a great relief, since I haven't felt safe here for nearly a month. What his legal consequences will be, I don't care, as long as there are some.

Does that make me a "vigilante"? I don't think so. I want to feel safe in my own home and to leave it when I want without fear of being accosted in the hallway or lobby or any other place I might legitimately wish to be - and I want the same for other women, as well.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If they didn't have a peaceful intent, why are the people they surrounded still alive? Fake news.

One of the counter-protesters is dead. She was run down, along with 19 other people.

I have really come to detest the phrase "fake news." It's usually used by people who refuse to believe or acknowledge the facts that are staring them in the face.

 

[Zelig]

It reminds me of these 'pro-lifers' who publish personal information about abortion providers. They are trying to intimidate people into silence...

False equivalence. Identities of people marching in public is not private information. Home addresses are.

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 expect that in the long run, we can disenfranchise them into oblivion.

 

[Perfection]

True, and how many times have I been called "misogynistic", "bigoted", "white supremacist", "a neo-nazi", "wants poor people to lose health insurance", "wants poor people to not have education" etc? These are the shaming tactics.

Merely saying things that is liable to cause shame does not render an argument invalid. For instance, if you were to propose pouring arsenic into the town well, the response of "Do you want to poison them?" is perfectly legitimate response. It would even be legitimate in the event that you didn't think arsenic was a poison.

Now of course, they may try to slap the label "poisoner" on you, which may or may not be fair. However even in that case, the label "poisoner" alludes to a legitimate argument that labeler is attempting to make (namely that one shouldn't put arsenic in the well because it would poison people).

Politics is a messy ugly activity where tempers flare and labels get passed around, but the left has legitimate arguments that it has expressed, even if it's not uniform or perfectly tactful in expressing it. Dismissing their arguments out of hand or pretending they don't exist does you as a fellow seeker of truth a disservice.

Many leftists are great people, no doubt. I'm speaking of "the left" as an abstract concept.

You must never forget that "the left" and "the right" are labels used to describe people. When you say "the left" most people don't think it's some abstract concept but actual living breathing humans that share certain political beliefs.

 

[civver_764]

One of the counter-protesters is dead. She was run down, along with 19 other people.

What does that have to do with the peaceful torch-lit march from the night before?

Politics is a messy ugly activity where tempers flare and labels get passed around, but the left has legitimate arguments that it has expressed, even if it's not uniform or perfectly tactful in expressing it. Dismissing their arguments out of hand or pretending they don't exist does you as a fellow seeker of truth a disservice.

I'm just saying man, one side seems to get their "tempers flared" significantly more than the other side. Makes you think.

 

[Ryika]

I've heard different versions of whether or not the protest was legal. If it was, then they had the right to be there. If not, they broke the law and should be identified.

It was legal. The major wanted that thing canceled, but was overruled by court, to which he then said that the protesters would not have police protection.

During the protest, state of emergency was declared, which forced the protest to disband. According to the daily caller, that's when both groups clashed, because the protesters had to move towards the counter-protesters, though I have no idea how accurate that is.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What does that have to do with the peaceful torch-lit march from the night before?

Was the murderer at that "peaceful" march?

 

[cardgame]

What does that have to do with the peaceful torch-lit march from the night before?

I'm just saying man, one side seems to get their "tempers flared" significantly more than the other side. Makes you think.

You're right, but probably not in the way you think you are.