Mass tagging reddit users - What are your thoughts?

[Xzi]

From what I know, they're decently active, it's just that 4chan has no rules against hate speech. The only things that usually get cleaned up is shit like CP or porn on the safe boards/furry shit outside of /trash/ and /b/.

Exactly. Not much point in having moderators if there are basically no rules.

 

[Attacker3]

From what I know, they're decently active, it's just that 4chan has no rules against hate speech. The only things that usually get cleaned up is shit like CP or porn on the safe boards/furry shit outside of /trash/ and /b/.

Hate Speech doen't exist my dude. There's speech that certain people don't like, but speech is speech my duder.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Exactly. Not much point in having moderators if there are basically no rules.

The rules are to
1. Not spam
2. Have quality discussions
if you have more rules than that then your site sucks. GBAtemp has good rules, and so does 4chan. You won't have better convos on these 2 sites.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Hate Speech doen't exist my dude. There's speech that certain people don't like, but speech is speech my duder.

"Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."

Straight from wikipedia.

The mere fact that some peolpe use racial slurs is factual proof that hate speech exists. The fact that my country has a party that hates muslims to the degree where they want to commit actual censorship by banning the Quran is a factual proof that hate speech exists.

It's proof that 4chan is a den of hate speech, we only need to look at people like Eliott Rogers (adopted the incel methodology which massively grew on r9k for his shooting, was martyrized by the incels) to realise that saying that hate speech is indeed a thing on the internet and certainly is an issue (I could cite other examples, such as the top 10 times T_D incited violence, the Charlottesville rally being an example).

 

[Attacker3]

Charlottesville rally being an example).

Speaking of which, you know that he was being chased by an ANTIFA member with a rifle, right?

 

[Xzi]

Speaking of which, you know that he was being chased by an ANTIFA member with a rifle, right?

Why the fuck would you make excuses for a guy who committed murder? It's no wonder two-thirds of terrorism was tied to ring-wing extremists last year, the right-wing goes so far as to actually defend this shit.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...hirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists

 

[Attacker3]

Why the fuck would you make excuses for a guy who committed murder? It's no wonder two-thirds of terrorism was tied to ring-wing extremists last year, the right-wing goes so far as to actually defend this shit.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...hirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists

Because perhaps it wasn't murder, and perhaps someone with an AR-15 (who's a person part of a domestic terrorist organization) chasing you down would scare you enough to GTFO of there? Just saying my friend, maybe you should consider the other side, instead of going for things that mirror your expectations.

 

[The Catboy]

I am ok with this as it gives me the information I need to avoid some people. NAZIs and "alt-right" (which are still Neo-NAZIs with a different name) love to integrate into communities and pose as normal members, while making small dog whistles that attract more trash to the sites. I know there's a few these boards that's been trying for years and it would be nice to have them taken out of the shadows.

Because perhaps it wasn't murder, and perhaps someone with an AR-15 (who's a person part of a domestic terrorist organization) chasing you down would scare you enough to GTFO of there? Just saying my friend, maybe you should consider the other side, instead of going for things that mirror your expectations.

It's funny how a group who's not committed a terrorist act nor threat are labeled terrorists for wanting to stop NAZIs
Why would anyone want to consider the other side with far-right groups? They want people dead for just living their lives, there's no need to "consider their side."

 

[Xzi]

Because perhaps it wasn't murder, and perhaps someone with an AR-15 (who's a person part of a domestic terrorist organization) chasing you down would scare you enough to GTFO of there? Just saying my friend, maybe you should consider the other side, instead of going for things that mirror your expectations.

There's literally zero evidence for what you're claiming. I've heard other similar excuses, that people attacking his car somehow "made him" drive into the crowd, but when you watch the footage it clearly debunks that. He had a ton of clearance from the crowd and every person near by.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Speaking of which, you know that he was being chased by an ANTIFA member with a rifle, right?

The fact you chose to not try standing up against my main claim re:Rogers means youre tacitly agreeing hate speech exists then?

And that's not related to the point I was making. The Charlottesville incident was instigated and celebrated on t_d. My point was proving that hate speech exists, not to get in the details of who shot what, why and where. I don't care about the apologism for the incident that you're trying to push, the point is that it happened and was both egged on and celebrated by an online community, therefore being absolute fact that digital hate speech exists.

(Although I find it interesting that your only source to that guy being an antifa member is a google search for "antifa domestic violence", instead of listing any actual valid source stating this was an antifa member. So if this claim has any grounds, link me a reputable source (sites like Breitbart, Daily Stormer and InfoWars don't count, to pop those sources early, they're biased sources)).

 

[Joe88]

It's funny how a group who's not committed a terrorist act nor threat are labeled terrorists for wanting to stop NAZIs
Why would anyone want to consider the other side with far-right groups? They want people dead for just living their lives, there's no need to "consider their side."

Causing personal violence, mass property damage, and rioting in the name of politcal affiliation or ideology is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Don't think exactly like us? Didn't vote for a certain person? Try to voice an opinion other then our own? Well then you're a nazi and deserve to have violence committed against you.
These are the kind of loose definitions that antifa puts out and its extremely dangerous and doesn't belong in this country. A few states have even took things in their own hands like NJ which listed antifa as a domestic terror organization.

This bill in particular was introduced to the house, the Unmasking Antifa Act which is actually a modified version of laws that were used to crack down on the KKK in the pure sense or irony.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6054/text?format=txt

They themselves call them anti-facists but they are the real facists at the end of the day.

 

[Xzi]

They themselves call them anti-facists but they are the real facists at the end of the day.

Two-thirds of terrorist acts in the US were committed by right-wing extremists in 2017. Antifa doesn't work as an excuse to erase the facts. Not that I support any type of extremism, especially considering Antifa are primarily anarchists, and anarchy in modern America would lead to the same type of authoritarian oligarchy that the neo-Nazis want in charge.

 

[Attacker3]

There's literally zero evidence for what you're claiming. I've heard other similar excuses, that people attacking his car somehow "made him" drive into the crowd, but when you watch the footage it clearly debunks that. He had a ton of clearance from the crowd and every person near by.

https://archive.is/gF1iR
https://archive.is/wQb58

The fact you chose to not try standing up against my main claim re:Rogers means youre tacitly agreeing hate speech exists then?

No, I just don't see any point in arguing with someone about this. You can definitely say something is "hate speech", but in the eyes of the law AND the constitution, speech is just speech. There are no qualifiers mentioned in the first amendment.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

They themselves call them anti-facists but they are the real facists at the end of the day.

It's kinda funny and it's kinda sad at the same time. The people who want peaceful discussion nowadays is the right, and the left win usually thinks that's a bad thing. If you can't defend your ideas, then your ideas are inferior. If these "nazis" are so gosh darn wrong, then just debate them and ruin them! The thing is they can't because they are worried, because deep down they know they are just as bad. That's why they cover their faces.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Causing personal violence, mass property damage, and rioting in the name of politcal affiliation or ideology is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Don't think exactly like us? Didn't vote for a certain person? Try to voice an opinion other then our own? Well then you're a nazi and deserve to have violence committed against you.
These are the kind of loose definitions that antifa puts out and its extremely dangerous and doesn't belong in this country. A few states have even took things in their own hands like NJ which listed antifa as a domestic terror organization.

This bill in particular was introduced to the house, the Unmasking Antifa Act which is actually a modified version of laws that were used to crack down on the KKK in the pure sense or irony.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6054/text?format=txt

They themselves call them anti-facists but they are the real facists at the end of the day.

From what I can see, the "antifa" group is mostly a fringe group. The concept of what it's a shorthand for (anti-facism is what antifa means in full for the unaware) should be something that everyone who isn't a goddamn facist should aim for. (And as I describe below, the alt-right definetly qualify as facists).

Don't think exactly like us? Didn't vote for a certain person? Try to voice an opinion other then our own? Well then you're a nazi and deserve to have violence committed against you.

Maybe I should give my definition of a Nazi:

Someone who desires for a government that silences all criticism against that government (this is facism) and specifically desires some type of ethnostate (this is unique to the Nazis, which is what history high school class over here specifically pointed out).

Funnily enough, this specifically could summarize the concept of the alt-right, and specifically the Trump presidency with overwhelming evidence:

• Trump has stated that he wants to censor criticism of his government, has demanded the identity of websites criticizing him and his inauguration shortly after being president (hello facism) and only just recently seems to have wanted to regulate google searches and has demanded the NYT to hand over the writer of the anonymous op-ed (which is censorship because Trumps general behavior surrounding it has made it rather clear he doesn't intent to simply sit down and have a nice chat with him).
• Continuing on this train, Trumps constant commentary on Mexicans during his rally (funnily enough he hasn't brought them up anymore after getting into office) and the fact that he can't even denounce the leader of the Ku Klux Klan supporting him seems to suggest that Trump also desires for some kind of ethnostate, namely one that is foreigner free and doesn't have black people.

If I may be so bold to ask, what does that image even intent to represent? It seems to contribute little to any actual subject of your main body (namely critcizing the antifa) and seems more intent on criticizing the left in general than anything else.

No, I just don't see any point in arguing with someone about this. You can definitely say something is "hate speech", but in the eyes of the law AND the constitution, speech is just speech. There are no qualifiers mentioned in the first amendment.

...except you used this point to deride the concept of adding in rules to a community against hate speech, which means that the point you were making is invalid.

Just because something is or isn't in the law doesn't make it "right". Yellow starring the Jews was a law in Nazi Germany, this doesn't mean it's a right law. Hell, it wasn't. Saying that the law doesn't care isn't an argument here. Assuming a community has any kind of self-respecting morals, they ban hate speech, regardless on if the law says they should or shouldn't.

Also, not the entire world revolves around America. Hello, I'm Dutch. Over here we actually have laws that prevent people from rallying others to commit violence.

It's kinda funny and it's kinda sad at the same time. The people who want peaceful discussion nowadays is the right, and the left win usually thinks that's a bad thing. If you can't defend your ideas, then your ideas are inferior. If these "nazis" are so gosh darn wrong, then just debate them and ruin them! The thing is they can't because they are worried, because deep down they know they are just as bad. That's why they cover their faces.

I'm sorry for not desiring to hold a discussion with people that think that other people should either die because of their ethnicity (racism), just "change their sexuality to being straight" (hello homophobia) or "can't be born into the wrong gender, nor can they change it if they so choose" (hello transphobia, and just to clarify, outside of medical purposes, there is no ground for any kind of enforced sexuality).

See up above as to why I think that the alt-right specifcally are Nazi's, going by the book definition of what classifies them as a Nazi.

And please, calm on the ad hominem at the end. As you can hopefully see, I can more than easily enough hold my ground against the Nazis.

 

[Attacker3]

And please, calm on the ad hominem at the end. As you can hopefully see, I can more than easily enough hold my ground against the Nazis.

Oh, you're antifa. Didn't realize. Sorry my friend, I don't speak with terrorists.

 

[Ev1l0rd]

Oh, you're antifa. Didn't realize. Sorry my friend, I don't speak with terrorists.

Come again?

Being against Nazis is a bad thing now?

Note that I'm not calling you a Nazi, I was just hoping that I could make it clear that given how I'm able to argue in this thread should also hopefully show that in the case of actual goddamn Nazis I can easily decimate them and their shit ideologies.

The ad hominem is the implication that me and anyone who doesn't debate the Nazis is and I quote "worried because deep down they know they are just as bad as them".

Actually, you seem to just have equated anyone with left beliefs under the banner of antifa.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

(Also just to clarify: I'm not a part of the millitant antifa group, since I forgot to explicitly state this, but that should hopefully be clear)

 

[Xzi]

View attachment 143545

So even your own evidence contradicts you, it says he chased him off that block before the guy decided to ram into a crowd with his car, not that he chased him into the crowd. Even if he was literally chasing him into the crowd, the onus is still on the driver to use his goddamn brakes. Open carry is legal in just about every state, so unless he had started firing his rifle, the only person committing a crime was the driver. The second amendment applies even to groups/organizations you don't like.

 

[Attacker3]

So even your own evidence contradicts you, it says he chased him off that block before the guy decided to ram into a crowd with his car, not that he chased him into the crowd. Even if he was literally chasing him into the crowd, the onus is still on the driver to use his goddamn brakes. Open carry is legal in just about every state, so unless he had started firing his rifle, the only person committing a crime was the driver. The second amendment applies even to groups/organizations you don't like.

Wow imagine if people were threatening you, and you had to get out of there ASAP.


Him admitting it on video, and a block away he waved a gun, and right before he accelerated by the crowd someone smacked the back of his truck What the heck do you think is going to happen? He might've thought he was being shot at. If you look at the footage, he's trying not to hit anyone until they start swarming him and hit his car.

He even cried when he realized someone had died. I highly doubt he meant for anyone to be hurt, he just got spooked after a gun-toting mob attacked his car and threatened his safety.

 

[Xzi]

Wow imagine if people were threatening you, and you had to get out of there ASAP.

The footage shows him going straight through a four-way intersection and into the crowd. I would've just taken a left or a right because I drive on roads, not on people.

Him admitting it on video, and a block away he waved a gun, and right before he accelerated by the crowd someone smacked the back of his truck What the heck do you think is going to happen? He might've thought he was being shot at. If you look at the footage, he's trying not to hit anyone until they start swarming him and hit his car.

He even cried when he realized someone had died. I highly doubt he meant for anyone to be hurt, he just got spooked after a gun-toting mob attacked his car and threatened his safety.

Both the neo-nazis and antifa were heavily armed at this event, if the guy was so easily spooked by the sight of a gun then he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Hell, if he's that easily spooked into jamming his foot on the gas, he probably shouldn't have had a driver's license either. It doesn't change the fact that individuals are responsible for their actions.

 

[FAST6191]

Both the neo-nazis and antifa were heavily armed at this event, if the guy was so easily spooked by the sight of a gun then he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Hell, if he's that easily spooked into jamming his foot on the gas, he probably shouldn't have had a driver's license either. It doesn't change the fact that individuals are responsible for their actions.

While I don't necessarily disagree on the notion of if you can't handle the heat and have not vetted anything about this stuff now under discussion what you describe is not necessarily how the law works. You cause a stampede (and making threatening gestures with , or perhaps pointing, a weapon would fairly easily qualify for that one) and that ends up on you even if you sit pretty throughout it all, indeed the whole fire in a crowded theatre legal thought experiment is pretty much this.

Anyway I sense people are talking past each other. On the matter of antifa some are sticking to the narrative of "it's an action you do" and others are looking at the uniform, common base from which it draws, handbook, consistent patterns of action, marginal coordination and saying while they might be broadly independent cells or patterned on something like Anonymous calling it a group and according it equivalent status is not really a stretch. Sticking to one when you mean the other is not helpful, and might even be one of those bad faith argument tactics that are apparently so popular and egregious.

 

[Attacker3]

Both the neo-nazis and antifa were heavily armed at this event, if the guy was so easily spooked by the sight of a gun then he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Hell, if he's that easily spooked into jamming his foot on the gas, he probably shouldn't have had a driver's license either. It doesn't change the fact that individuals are responsible for their actions.

haha yes don't run from an angry mob haha, just like, let them attack you, dude!