One Twitter Account's Mission To Make White Supremacists Very, Very Famous
from the should-have-worn-your-hoods dept
After the ugly stain that was this past weekend, when a group of “protestors” took to the streets of Charlottesville to “protest” the removal of a statue commemorating some loser who lost a war because he was a loser, there has been an unfortunate strain of calls to crack down on speech rights of these imbeciles. It’s exactly the wrong sort of reaction for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that starting down the road to relieving the rights to speech you don’t like today can come back and bite you in your ass tomorrow. Our own Tim Cushing’s take on how important it is to defend the speech rights of those we dislike the most is among the best I’ve read, but it focuses on the need to rally support for speech rights in the face of outrage. Left unsaid is at least one potential solution to the speech polution that occurrs when a bunch of race-obsessed jackwagons decide to throw a party: more speech and expression.
To see one example of this in action, we can take a look at a delightful Twitter account, @YesYoureRacist, and its mission to make the sort of people that publicly expose themselves as racist very, very famous.
The @YesYoureRacist account began tweeting pictures of demonstrators on Saturday, asking, “If you recognize any of the Nazis marching in #Charlottesville, send me their names/profiles and I’ll make them famous.”
It’s been credited with outing a University of Nevada student, who acknowledges attending a rally in Charlottesville Friday night but maintains he is not a racist.
That student, of course, then went on to say that he was only attending the rally to preserve a statue of Robert E. Lee because he believes “the replacement of the statue will be the slow replacement of white heritage within the United States”, which, you know… racist. If you’ve seen the now famous photos of the white supremacists marching, this student is the one you’ve seen screaming while wild-eyed. That’s notable for a very specific reason: the people at these types of rallies used to wear hoods over their heads. And for good reason, as they didn’t want the wider public to be able to identify them alongside their detestable beliefs.
But not so in Charlottesville. Instead, the ralliers marched with their faces in full view of the public, allowing the man behind @YesYoureRacist to retweet the photos to his thousands of followers, identify them by name, find out where they go to school and/or work, and then contact those places to inform them they have a racist in their midst thus allowing them to take action if they choose. None of this, by the way, should be confused with doxxing, the process by which jerks on Twitter detail personal information from those that are trying to keep personal information secret. No, these protesters marched proudly in public, splashing their easily-identifiable faces all over the newswire. @YesYoureRacist, through speech and expression, is now simply making them even more famous.
This isn’t to say that all of this will go on without a hitch. It won’t. Already there have been mistakes made in identifying some involved in the white supremacist marches. One man was misidentified when followers of @YesYoureRacist decided that passing resemblances without any further checking were enough to vilify a man who was not at the rally, is not a white supremacist, and in fact runs a laboratory dedicated to helping people. Because extremism is everywhere these days, this man was threatened to the point of his deciding his home was no longer safe.
But that is a failure of a good idea gone too far, not of the idea of supercharging the fame of horrible people itself being bad. What is needed there is better speech and sleuthing, not an end to it. Free speech and expression gets the messiest in these sorts of endeavors, after all, and those mistakes don’t nullify the overall good being done. As Ken “Popehat” White points out in a useful tweetstorm more speech is good, but so is a careful and proportional response:
So, identifying people and contacting their employer to complain is "more speech." I'm not opposed in all circumstances. /1
— FireAndFuryPopehat (@Popehat) August 15, 2017
But: it's not inherently moral any more than inherently immoral. It depends on the people who participate and their conduct. /2
— FireAndFuryPopehat (@Popehat) August 15, 2017
/3 For instance, if you suck at it and get the wrong person, or promote people who suck at it, you're morally responsible for the result.
— FireAndFuryPopehat (@Popehat) August 15, 2017
Oh, and also this:
/5 Second, whatever moral argument there is for calling out, there's none for harassing family and friends of targets. Fuck you if you do it
— FireAndFuryPopehat (@Popehat) August 15, 2017
Now, if those currently calling for limiting the speech rights of white supremacists and Nazis had their way, how many less faces would we have in the photos of people that outed themselves? Far, far less, obviously. As I’ve always said, a big part of the reason I defend the rights of racists to be racists is because I want the racists to reveal themselves. And then folks like @YesYoureRacist can go about making them famous.
Filed Under: charlottesville, counter speech, free speech, racists, white supremecists, yesyourracist
Companies: twitter
Comments on “One Twitter Account's Mission To Make White Supremacists Very, Very Famous”
lol
“I’m not racist, I just hang out with racists”
Re: lol
no no, we caught what you mean.
Okay to call someone that hangs with racists a racist and to treat them as such, but not fine for police to treat other people hanging with gangsters as though they are gangsters right?
Both actively contribute to the moral decay of society but one deserve protection while the other does not.
At the end of that day, it is okay for YOU to disparage social elements that you hate, but not okay for others to disparage social elements that they hate. Additionally, it is not okay to compare these because nazi’s promote the destruction of a particular class of people while gangsters are in actual open warfare murdering people over wearing the wrong color, selling drugs on the wrong turf, acting out int he wrong way, but just not openly promoting.
Yea, we got it, what people SAY is far more important to you than what they are actually doing!
Call us back with your indignation when these American bitch nazi’s wanna be’s start to kill as much or more than your standard dope head gangsta’s and thugs that are being oppressed!
Re: Re: lol
It’s ok to drive your vehicle through a crowd because gangsters somewhere are selling drugs … got it.
Re: Re: Re: lol
Since when does calling out someone’s hypocrisy mean that I endorse any actions that have been taken?
I believe it is quite okay to tell both people to stop fighting each other regardless of who throws the first punch.
What did Christ say when he was asked why he only hung out with the sinners?
Some people are a part of the crowd because they are too afraid to speak out, because they know that they are already going to be discriminated against by others that saw them with that crowd. There is so much unforgiving rhetoric out there that once you are labeled as being on a side, you could have your fate sealed before anyone is the wiser.
Re: Re: Re:2 lol
Ok, then why was he there?
He was there to protest removal of the statue … good cover story but then why is he yelling? Was the statue being taken down right at that moment? Is the statue still standing? Why is that?
And what does this have to do with religion? Nothing.
What is racist about the following?
“I’m not racist, I just hang out with racists”
It is an observation of many who make such claims … sota like the famous “I have several black friends”
Re: Re: Re:3 lol
“Ok, then why was he there?
He was there to protest removal of the statue … good cover story but then why is he yelling? Was the statue being taken down right at that moment? Is the statue still standing? Why is that?”
I don’t think you are understanding what I am getting at. In short he may not have wanted to be there in the first place or was protesting for a different reason, but since he was placed in a high pressure situation he cracked in a bad way. It happened, I have experienced this and regretted things I have said in the past because I allowed a hostile person into goad me into action I would not have taken otherwise. And that is not to excuse their actions either, just how it can break down.
“And what does this have to do with religion? Nothing.” it was an example of how some people might have an excuse for being with someone somewhere for a reason other than “racism” but you can’t see past that can you?
—What is racist about the following?
“I’m not racist, I just hang out with racists”
It is an observation of many who make such claims … sota like the famous “I have several black friends”—
That is a completely non-sequitor statement. I never said that comment was racist, I made it clear that the same people that call others racist for being around a racist, looking and dressing like a racist are the same folks that bash the police for treating minorities as criminals for being around actual criminals and looking like actual criminals.
Could you work on summoning up some consistency here?
Either people are racist for hanging out with other racists AND minorities are criminals for hanging out with other criminals
-or-
they are not just guilty by association!
Such efforts only help to ensure that they only have racists to fall back on because you have already made it clear that they can’t rely on you to be an objective observer!
having said all of that I am not making the claim the person is NOT a racist either. Just saying that the stench off of you is every bit as bad as the rest for making that assumption without any solid evidence.
Have ever wondered why people assume that others are guilty by accusation and without proof? Well wonder no more and realize that you are of the same basic moral fiber as those guys that treat other bad because they think they can judge others on flimsy and thin evidence! he might be guilty as charged, but there is no way you can know it! there are a lot of innocent people in jail because of those like you.
Re: Re: Re:4 lol
By the way, the terrorist drove hundreds of miles to hang out with his Nazi buddies.
Re: Re: Re:5 lol
I say again…
“having said all of that I am not making the claim the person is NOT a racist either.”
If that is all that is needed to justify the accusation then you have a low benchmark for guilt. I am going to wait until until there is no shadow of doubt.
Re: Re: Re:6 lol
There’s pictures of him in nazi regalia, so yeah no shadow of doubt.
Re: Re: Re:7 lol
well, have THEY seen them or are you just assuming that they have had the chance to see everything YOU have seen?
Provide links or something don’t just assume people have read and seen the same evidence that you have.
Re: Re: Re:6 lol
“I am going to wait until until there is no shadow of doubt.”
Trump? … Is that you?
Get back to your twitter account immediately!!!
Re: Re: Re:7 lol
So picking on someone for waiting to see evidence is bad now?
I guess what they said was right…
“If that is all that is needed to justify the accusation then you have a low benchmark for guilt. I am going to wait until until there is no shadow of doubt.”
Re: Re: Re:8 lol
No shadow of a doubt.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-14/charlottesville-accused-james-alex-fields-held-nazi-views/8802880?pfmredir=sm
Can’t wait for you to move the goalposts some more.
Re: Re: Re:8 lol
“I am going to wait until until there is no shadow of doubt.”
So never then – got it.
Re: Re: Re:4 lol
“In short he may not have wanted to be there in the first place”
He was kidnapped?
“since he was placed in a high pressure situation he cracked “
Like it was not his fault for being there in the first place lol, nice try.
” I never said that comment was racist,”
It was implied
Oh, I’m not consistent? How would you know?
False equivalence is fun and exciting, amaze your friends and family! I think you try too hard to normalize bad behavior.
Re: Re: Re:5 lol
“It was implied”
By you, apparently!
Is the only lens you look through labeled racist?
Re: Re: Re:6 lol
The topic includes racism, you defend the white supremists … and yet we are supposed to give you the benefit of doubt.
Why?
Re: Re: Re:4 lol
Yeah, he meant to go to a Nazi rally held in a spa.
Re: Re: Re:5 lol
Bathing the blood of the innocent does work wonders for one’s complexion.
Re: Re: lol
“Okay to call someone that hangs with racists a racist and to treat them as such, but not fine for police to treat other people hanging with gangsters as though they are gangsters right?”
Depends on the situation. If the guy has travelled hundreds or thousands of miles in order to attend a gathering of gangsters specifically to protest and display their gangsterness, then sure. If they just happen to live in the same area or share the same colour skin, no.
That’s what you meant, right?
So what you are saying is that white people have no rughts ti history?
Sounds a little like the winners rewriting the history books.
Re: Strawman
That is the most stretchiest strawman I’ve ever seen
Re: Re: Strawman
Not at all. My primary objection to these removals is that it lets Reb states off the hook for their part in the Civil War. It lets them white wash the situation and hide unpleasant reminders.
Putting an “emancipation” park in the middle of Virginia is just delusional.
Take down Robert if you like but there should still be a big plaque declaring “we were stupid” put in it’s place. Otherwise it’s hypocritial Orwellian nonsense.
Re: Re:
I have not heard anyone saying anything remotely similar to that. What you apparently want is to preserve a small portion of history depicted in statues. The history books are not good enough for you, the statues are to be worshiped … isn’t there some religious thing which addresses this?
Re: Re: Re:
He wrote two sentences. Read them a couple of times. There is a reason he has been awarded a beautiful “LOL”-sign.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, as it is obvious – right?
Re: Re: Re:
No. History books aren’t good enough. They are too easily avoided.
A lot of those history books also tend to promote bogus narratives and ignore key relevant details. White washing physical monuments only magnifies that problem. The speeches by neo-Democrats are even filled with the relevant bullshit.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
…are you under the impression that people erected monuments to Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jefferson Davis because they wanted to show everyone how bad those guys were, and that people with swastika armbands are marching to protest their removal because they also believe those monuments represent those historical figures’ badness?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If written documentation is insufficient for you, how do you accomplish anything at all?
For example, when assembling your kids new Christmas toy, do you throw out the instructions because they are not good enough? They were certainly avoided easily.
Bogus narratives … you mean like these?
– the slaves wanted to come over here to look for employment
– the civil war was about economics
– the native americans were treated fairly
What do the statues provide to the general public that history books do not?
What politicians are not full of BS?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Obviously people feel they provide something, or there’d be no conflict. At the very least, they’re tangible evidence of how people viewed the people depicted. It’s one thing to see a statement in a book like "70% of people approved of Lee", and another to see statues everywhere. If books were enough, nobody would need musea.
Statue-toppling is a bit too close to book-burning for me. The statues shouldn’t go "unchallenged", but like Mein Kampf people could try to put it in context. Maybe "annotate" it with regard to slavery, natives, etc.—a "perception vs. reality"-type of exhibit. Simply removing them would downplay the fact that this wasn’t some anti-democratic coup, but the will of the majority of people at the time (you know, if you don’t count the slaves or women, as they didn’t).
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
The statues provide a symbol of racism for public display so that everyone remembers their place – no?
“Now, if those currently calling for limiting the speech rights of white supremacists and Nazis had their way, how many less faces would we have in the photos of people that outed themselves? Far, far less, obviously. As I’ve always said, a big part of the reason I defend the rights of racists to be racists is because I want the racists to reveal themselves. And then folks like @YesYoureRacist can go about making them famous.”
This is the BEST way to address the issue. But too many of these thin skinned pro and anti trump zealots can’t handle it!
Re: Re:
But only if they are right about whom the charge with being racist. There are some in this world that think every single person on earth is racist. That is not correct.
There is a difference between being discriminating and being racist. If one does not discriminate, one could not determine if they like pistachio or strawberry ice cream.
One is racist if they do things because of those items that are listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the legislative and judicial updates. Racism comes from hate, hate that is instilled, and then used.
Re: Re: Re:
Wait .. only racists have taste buds????
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only discriminating racists.
Re: Re: Re:
“But only if they are right about whom the charge with being racist. There are some in this world that think every single person on earth is racist. That is not correct.”
You are right, and I constantly warn others about continuously labeling everything or everyone they don’t like as racist or xenophobic.
“One is racist if they do things because of those items that are listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the legislative and judicial updates.”
I classify anyone that acts against another person based solely on their race as a racist, not just for things listed in the CRA.
“Racism comes from hate, hate that is instilled, and then used.”
I disagree, people can become racist without the help of anyone else. Racism is the part of human nature where others think themselves to be better than you. They can apply this nasty human behavior based on several criteria.
Are you poor? Then rich people treat you like trash.
Are you cheering for another team? The people on the other team treat you like trash.
Are you from a different culture? The people from another culture treat you like trash too.
Are you intellectually different? The people from the jock crowed might bully you for being smarter than them.
Are you physically handicapped? The normal people might bully you for that too.
People just like to act superior to others and racism is just one way in which this human vice presents itself. In all cases there is a group of people with similar traits or ideology perpetrating some form of offense against a target demographic. You do not require any instruction or instilling to become this.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"One is racist if they do things because of those items that are listed in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the legislative and judicial updates."
I classify anyone that acts against another person based solely on their race as a racist, not just for things listed in the CRA.
Absolutely – racism is not unique to the USA.
I’m totally fine with publishing the names of people spotted at any rally, be it Nazi or Earth Day. But calling their employer to complain is just fucked up.
Re: Re:
The same argument that is used to rationalize the warrant less surveillance of public spaces can be used to expose racists.
Re: Re: Re:
Except one is private citazens the other is the government, big difference.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Private citizen typically has more leeway than the government
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
So you’d be okay with doxxing black people who show up to protests so long as a private citizen did it?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
How are you going to do that ? They all look the same.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
No, but are you suggesting that there be “a law” ?
I thought that if I saw something I was supposed to say something.
Stumbled across this pic, andd it reminded me of the phrasing used in the article’s first paragraph:
http://i.imgur.com/ugedoym.jpg
OK, so you identify a racist. I would imagine that their lives are pretty fucked up, would anyone disagree with that one? Their upbringing was probably pretty screwed up (and now you condemn someone for how they were raised, how their environment created them? Do the same for someone raised in the ghetto?) and you identify them and get them fired from a probably pretty menial job.
Now their life is even more screwed up, how do you expect them to react? Think they will change their ways? Doubtful, now they will be even more screwed up and pissed off, and chances are these douchbags also have a passion for collecting many many guns.
What do you think happens next? They are now really screwed and pissed at either liberals or blacks for ruining their lives, they have no future and they have lots of guns.
Good luck with that one.
Does it make things better or does it just make you feel happy for a bit? If it doesn’t improve the situation, then probably not a good idea.
Here is an idea, if they break the law, throw them in jail. Doesn’t matter why they broke the law, they broke it, put them in jail. What they believe? Who really cares?
Re: Re:
I feel so bad now … I was like “wow those assholes ‘n stuff” but now I am sooo ashamed that I was thinking those people were bad. They were simply trying to stop a statue from being removed and ended up killing someone – that poor victim who was driving the car that everyone forced him to drive into that crowd. We should all just do what trump tells us now.
Re: Re: Re:
Poor victim in the car? Hmmmm, Let’s take a look at this still in the top right from before the incident. https://i.imgtc.com/3FPG6Im.jpg
Note the weapon wielding rioter attacking his car before he ran into the crowd? Note the circled dents from previous attacks? Note the various other circled weapons wielded by “protesters” in the bottom pic?
So, let me ask you, if you’re surrounded by a hostile weapon wielding mob who are currently attacking your car, what would YOU do?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice try bro. He was driving on a pedestrian mall. Self defence must be why the cops let him go…. oh wait they didn’t.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
He was driving on a pedestrian mall like the other cars in front of him? Where the cops directed people to drive?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
How odd all the other cars managed to avoid killing people. Try harder bro.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, this one time I remember a bee stung me so I drove into a crowd of pedestrians in terror.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“So, let me ask you, if you’re surrounded by a hostile weapon wielding mob who are currently attacking your car, what would YOU do?”
Except it didn’t happen that way – the car was attacked after it drove thru a pedestrian area subsequently killing someone.
Re: Re:
Actions have consequences. If our hypothetical racist chooses to express his (we’ll assume this is a male) racism by attending a white supremacist rally and he gets fired as a result, then action has met consequence. Whether the racist learns anything from it is up to him. Perhaps he learns that racism is bad. Perhaps he learns that he shouldn’t publicly wave his racism about. Perhaps he learns nothing. Nevertheless, action has met consequence.
Plenty of people have demonstrated for truly worthy causes and experienced much worse consequences. They bore the consequences in the hopes that others would see their cause and be moved, advancing their cause a small step. I see these people’s cause. I am not moved. They deserve their consequences.
Re: Re: Re:
So, given that a lot of the sub-groups of the Black Lives Matter movement are pretty intensely racist themselves, you’d of course be okay with a BLM protester being outed and then fired from their job for peacefully protesting what they see as injustice?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It’s well known that blacks don’t work.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be fixating upon one minority here.
Re: Re: Re:
That’s not an “action”. It’s speech. You’ve just Orwelled yourself into completely obliterating the 1st Amendment. You could Orwell your way into destroying the rest in the same way.
No. The fact that “others have suffered” is not an excuse for the general principle that people should be punished for their political views. That’s genuinely fascist stuff there.
Some of us pining for the old days aren’t nostalgiac for Jim Crow. We remember when liberals had real principles.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Speech is not action? That’s some nice Orwellian doublethink right there. Of course speech is action; it’s action that is protected from government interference by the First Amendment. You should really read "1984" before you start trying to pull Orwell into an argument.
You continue your own Orwellian propaganda by mixing government and private actions in your next statement. Government punishment for political views is fascist. Private, legal punishment for political views is culture. Mind you, when we judge elements of that culture to be morally wrong, such as racism, we may enshrine protections from that private punishment in the law, such as the protections from private hiring/firing based on race. However, I find nothing morally wrong with private, legal punishments of a racist, and it seems to me that the majority of Americans agree with me.
Re: Re:
“probably pretty menial job”
While ignorance is one of the major causes of bigotry, it’s sadly a fallacy to assume that racists aren’t able to rise above the level of the knuckledraggers their words and actions would suggest. Some of them do have pretty decent professional jobs. Which is why they need to be exposed, because they’re in a decent position to do harm with their backward views. There’s laws in place to try and stop them, but the best medicine is for them to be exposed for who they are.
Re: Re: Re:
He was talking about the BLM protestors.
Re: Re: Re:
So punish them for what they think and say and not what they actually do?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody’s advocated that, so no.
But, if they want to join Nazi rallies, then they may be punished for the action of going to Nazi rallies. Nothing wrong with that, especially if they were too dumb to take their robes along to hide their faces.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Their employer might not be attempting punishment, they might be protecting their business.
Let’s be honest here .. one can be punished for things they say, but that is moot because, in some states, the employer can fire anyone for anything without reason.
Well, the innocent guy was threatened due to the actions of self-righteous internet tough guys who were more than happy to be thugs when they could hide behind a thin veneer of moral outrage. And, that result was actually an inevitable consequence of the let’s-shame-these-moral-degenerates-into-hell idea, since internet mobs like this can never be counted on to do this sort of thing carefully and with diligence. So, in practice the distinction between "good idea gone too far" and "bad idea" is pretty much tissue thin here.
Not that I think there should be any legal prohibition on this sort of thing. But, cheering it on is BS. If people don’t see the irony in innocent people being f*cked with by others who have ignorantly decided that they are morally inferior, …
Re: Re:
“cheering it on is BS”
This right here
Re: Re:
Racial discrimination is MADE of people deciding that purely cosmetic differences make someone morally inferior. The irony is they cannot see that deciding that white people are morally inferior for the color of their skin is equally racist.
Re: Re: Re:
“The irony is they cannot see that deciding that white people are morally inferior for the color of their skin is equally racist.”
Who are “they”?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Media? BLM? Twitter assuming because this white guy looks like that white guy it must be the racist white guy. he’s white afterall
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“They” are everyone who is not “us”
Re: Re: Re:
If you’re under the impression that white people are the real victims of racial discrimination in America, then I suspect there’s a reason people think you’re racist.
"RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
Perhaps your alcohol-clouded brain meant “removing”?
Ken White advocates controlling people through 3rd parties, employers (of course it’d be only working class, so note the liberal’s casual disdain for them):
KW >>> “So, identifying people and contacting their employer to complain is “more speech.””
KW >>> “I’m not opposed in all circumstances.” — For pressure through employers, believe that I am. It’s simply unfair tactic, guaranteed to create more chaos.
Enforcing political correctness is not integral duty nor right of an employer. In fact, I think it’s specifically illegal — certainly should be, else EVERY position in politics becomes impossible. How about “conservative” employers just fire anyone a little rainbowy? Does Ken White have any problem with utterly arbitrary, non-job-based discrimination? Or does his position only apply to over-the-top “Nazis”?
Is pressure from a few thousand organized weenies adequate cause compared to the millions of persons who didn’t complain? Liberals are experts at yelling; conservatives basically can’t compete, so again this goes only one way: toward those who support globalism and corporatism. (That many of this bunch are neo-cons having same fascist notions as neo-liberals is unimportant: that’s just a tactic, direction only goes the one way…)
Would it be okay for a group to target “liberals” that way? To get Ken White’s phone list, or anyone he MIGHT know, and ceaselessly call with “complaints” until they just simply associated Ken White with the harassment and cut him off? Oh, different then?
How about if someone hires call centers in India to just blanket areas where Ken White lives and works with calls about him — strictly truth, like that he’s suspected fond of philately? Money is speech, according to lawyers, so White shouldn’t object to persons paid. — Or should ORGANIZED harassment be out of bounds all around? — White has the position of someone not expecting to ever be a target, but that’s JUST a matter of haven’t riled someone with big money: as Masnick found, that can change.
“Mainstream” media universally side with The Establishment and present only one view. — There aren’t even any “liberals” now who oppose illegal foreign wars ginned up out of nothing! Questioning the wars is explicitly outside the acceptable range, the realm of “conspiracy kooks”.
But that can flip literally overnight. Attacks on THESE VIEWS (again, not the ACTIONS) might make others fear it’s gone too far, and then it’d be liberals targeted. — You should keep in mind that Trump SOMEHOW won, even if you buy into the phony Russia hacking story. Ken White could next week be the TARGET of thousands, not the condescending arbiter of what’s acceptable he is now.
Back to Timmy: you’re casually confounding the idiotic but legal notion to protect monuments to Confederate traitors with the (apparent) murder.
Now suppose YOUR employer dislikes what you write here, for insufficiently biased? (Rather like Google firing James Damore last week: JUST discussing it when asked is too much!) So, okay if fired for your VIEWS tomorrow?
My point is that Ken White has gone over a line with suggesting people apply pressure through employers.
White is thereby targeting opinions, not actions: that’s out of bounds in America.
Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
“it’d be only working class, so note the liberal’s casual disdain for them”
Most all rich people hate the poor because the poor remind them of their greedy practices which made them rich. But I had the impression that the GOP types were way more into this sort of thinking. For example, which party wants to remove health care as a basic need? Which party wants to reduce the minimum wage? Which party wants to disenfranchise voters? …the list goes on and on.
So, it’s not ok to inform an employer about what their employees do in their non work hours? Does this apply to everything?
Re: Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
“Most all rich people hate the poor because the poor remind them of their greedy practices which made them rich.”
this statement is wrong.
Rich folks generally dislike poor folks because they assume that they are only after their money. They seriously do not make the connection that they have been robbing them blind, they need a conscience for that to occur which is not likely since they managed to amass their wealth in that way and continue to treat the poor like trash.
Poor people also conversely just like rich and famous people and worship them for whatever strange reasons, especially rich/famous people that agree with their politics, like say actors for example.
“So, it’s not ok to inform an employer about what their employees do in their non work hours? Does this apply to everything?”
Good point, what if you got fired because you were accused of watching porn? In the wrong place at the wrong time? Protesting but not for the same reasons that the zealot nutter down the side walk is protesting? This attitude creates the business because morality police issue that is starting to occur. You don’t understand what you are even saying.
Re: Re: Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
yup – When away from your chosen place of employment, one should be free to do whatever they so please within the laws etc …but there are people out there that think they have been chosen to decide what everyone else does and they are not afraid to violate your rights in order to force you into compliance.
Re: Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
“which party wants to remove health care as a basic need? Which party wants to reduce the minimum wage? Which party wants to disenfranchise voters?”
Are you a 12 yr old girl?
Nobody can remove healthcare as a basic need.. It’s not a right, never was, but it will always be a need. And letting people opt-out doesn’t really “remove” it from anyone anyway.
Where exactly do they want to lower the min wage? They don’t want to increase it because that would be stupid, have you seen the impact on jobs and take home pay in Seattle, it had the exact opposite effect that they said they wanted.. but no one wants to lower it.
Asking for ID is not disenfranchising anyone, and it insults those they claim it does.
Re: Re: Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
You have no idea how healthcare works.
Your minimum wage argument is that one study of one city found evidence against raising the minimum wage, so we shouldn’t raise it at all anywhere. Solid stuff.
Literal, intended, targeted disenfranchisement of minority voters is ongoing, including via voter ID laws claiming to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/0-000002-percent-of-all-the-ballots-cast-in-the-2016-election-were-fraudulent/
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2017/08/10/silencing-vote-data-shows-unequal-barrier-indiana-polls/435450001/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/
Re: Re: Re:2 "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
No. YOU have no idea how health care works. It works like anything else. It is an exchange of labor. You can choose to distort free choice through expansive government interference or you can allow economic incentives to work.
All American attempts to implement “health care as a right” have been abject failures. You might want to pretend we haven’t tried but we have. There are various iterations of this for people genuinely unable to fend for themselves.
The only real issue is whether or not productive adults should be treated like children and wards of the state. Those that take the affirmative unfortunately have no desire to adequately fund the result.
That is why our current government health care programs suck so badly.
You are not at all enlightened. You just want something for free and you are willing to burn down the system and put MY life in jeapardy to do it.
Re: Re: Re:3 "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
Yeah, just look how unpopular Medicare and Medicaid are.
/s
…holy shit.
Did you just suggest that people who want to keep the ACA intact are the people who really want to take away people’s healthcare and endanger their lives?
Bravo, Jed. In a thread full of people insisting that BLM are the real racists and Antifa are the real nazis, I think you’ve managed to distinguish yourself by making the single most backwards claim out of anybody.
Re: Re: Re:3 "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
“No. YOU have no idea how health care works”
“You just want something for free”
“or you can allow economic incentives to work”
… and the medical industry does not gouge as their pricing is completely within reason and they would never pump up prices because they can as they have your well being in mind – LOL
No one in the medical field ever charges ridiculous amounts .. neither does the insurance industry, because they are controlled by the market and therefore self regulating.
btw, you do not have a right to health care, so you had better learn how to set that broken arm yourself.
Re: Re: Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
“Are you a 12 yr old girl?”
No, why would you ask?
“Nobody can remove healthcare as a basic need.. It’s not a right, never was, but it will always be a need”
You need this thing that you can’t afford because your employer is unwilling to pay a living wage and relies upon the taxpayer to subsidize his business – so just tough it out, you’ll die soon anyways.
“Where exactly do they want to lower the min wage? “
You read the news? You know how to use a search engine?
Here ya go – fresh off the fake news reel
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/07/us/st-louis-minimum-wage/index.html
“Asking for ID is not disenfranchising anyone”
That is just a small portion of the overall attack upon your voting rights.
Re: Re: Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
How exactly is raising the minimum wage stupid?
The basic principle of capitalism is that you pay the fair market price for what you get, and are paid the fair market price for what you give.
For decades, big corporations have been insisting via their lobbyists that government intervention into hourly wages is unnecessary because the market will correct for low wages, since someone unwilling to pay the going rate will be unable to hire workers.
In a truly free market capitalist system, it might even be true. But we don’t have one of those, and haven’t since the early 19th century. In our crony capitalist system, the top level decision makers network with each other, and somehow all their companies make the same decisions on what an hour of labor is worth.
Those decisions have no connection to economic reality. When an employer ‘forgets’ to make a cost of living wage raise in a year when inflation devalued the value of a dollar, they have effectively given their employees a pay cut by keeping wages at the same hourly rate. Since that inflation happens every year, that means that every year you didn’t get a small raise you effectively got your wages cut.
In 1968, minimum wage was set to perfectly match the inflation rate at the time. People disagree on exactly how much inflation has happened since then, but the inflation rate today is such that if you want a worker to be able to afford everything that a worker of the same skill level and pay scale could afford in 1968, minimum wage must be somewhere between $14 and $15 an hour. If you take into account all the things a modern worker is expected to have that a worker in 1968 did not (mobile phone, ‘tax’ for not buying health insurance, etc), the required minimum wage can rise as high as $27 an hour.
Minimum wages aren’t an arbitrary number, they’re the government calculating all factors and determining what one hour of unskilled labor is worth in today’s economy. The government does that because the big corporations have not kept the promises they made via their lobbyists for decades.
As I said, the basic principle of capitalism is to pay fairly and be paid fairly. But when one hour of asking “do you want fries with that” is worth $15 in a fair market, and all higher skill pay scales are based on the minimum wage, EVERYONE is being grossly underpaid.
The outrage is not that a burger flipper is making more than a highly trained paramedic, the outrage is that the paramedic is being cheated by his employer every day.
Re: Re: Re:2 "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
“The basic principle of capitalism is that you pay the fair market price for what you get,”
NOPE! That is NOT principle in Capitalism. Capitalism is ‘private’ ownership of production and product. Which means “fair market price” is a non-sequitur here. Get your principles right.
“For decades, big corporations have been insisting via their lobbyists that government intervention into hourly wages is unnecessary because the market will correct for low wages, since someone unwilling to pay the going rate will be unable to hire workers.”
Government intervention is required because the government is the cause for wage devaluation by not properly controlling immigration and foreign workers.
“Those decisions have no connection to economic reality.”
This is an obscured statement. They most certainly are connected to economic reality, you just don’t agree with their reasoning.
“The government does that because the big corporations have not kept the promises they made via their lobbyists for decades.”
They have, you just don’t know what they are. You have only heard the ones the public have been allowed to hear.
“As I said, the basic principle of capitalism is to pay fairly and be paid fairly.”
Maybe the definition would be better evidence that you are wrong.
Will merriam-webster be good enough?
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
“
Definition of capitalism
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”
Additionally, Capitalism does not require a free market to operate either.
Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
Eat shit blue.
Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
Does your employer dislike you too?
Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
What part of this article was written by popehat? You utter clod.
Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.
Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
I kind of agree with the general idea of your comment even though you went derp in some parts of it (the conservative/liberal part was particularly amusing). This is one of those rare times I have important disagreements with Popehat and an article on TD.
I vehemently disagree with the notion of screwing a person’s life because of their beliefs as twisted and abhorrent they may be unless their ACTIONS cause harm to, say, the people they don’t like because racism. As long as they respect the rights of others and don’t directly attack those peoples with lies or even physical assault then let them be. If their employer eventually finds out about them because they put their faces in a bullshit protest and decides to fire them because they are general dipshits so be it but it’s not anybody’s business to go hunt for stuff to screw that person. This makes people supposedly in the right (ie: not racists) as bad as the ones they are attacking.
I do support showing how stupid this bigotry is and I engage in selfless mockery when I meet these types but that’s as far as my counter-speech will go. I refuse to try to screw them outside of the discussion because I am better than that. We should all be better than that. And if there are crimes involved let the freaking law enforcement/courts deal with it. Pressure the govt, protest if you will but leave the person and SPECIALLY, his/her family and social circle out of it.
Don’t pretend to be a better person. Just be it.
Re: Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
Did Popehat or TD suggest that?
Re: Re: Re: "RELIEVING the rights to speech you don't like" -- ??????
What screwed their life was the decision to become a nazi. They’re just blaming those that out them as scapegoats for their own failures.
Re: Re: Re:2 Doxing / Shunning nazis
It’s a dangerous tactic because it can work both ways.
For instance, gays have secured the right to serve in the military and to marry each other, but in plenty of states, it’s still legal to fire someone for being gay, or to refuse service to them for being gay.
So what would happen if someone started a twitter account or a website or something that showcased pictures of faces taken at gay-rights rallies, connected them to identities and then contacted their friends / bosses / churches you know that this guy is a total ass-pirate, yes?
For the moment, we all can agree that racists are a horrible lot. But there are plenty of people that some others think are horrible enough, and this tactic can be used on them as well, and ruin plenty of lives that the rest of us don’t think should be ruined.
Racism is a problem, but attacking individual racists won’t neutralize the epidemic. Instead we have to consider what conditions drive people to bigotry and hate crimes, and change those conditions.
I don’t have the answer, but I can be pretty sure that we can dox all the racists we want and still have an epidemic. The 2016 election and the continuing Trump base seems to suggest it.
Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
Where was the outrage during any of the Million Man Marches, or any Black Lives Matter event? Why is it okay for some “minority groups” such as NAACP or NAAAP to promote a racist agenda, but detestable when white people do it?
The correct answer is that racism is wrong no matter who is involved.
Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
Protesting the murder of someone by police is now considered racism?
Interesting.
Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
All over Fox News, Breitbart, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the New York Post, the Free Republic…
In fact, I’m pretty confident you wouldn’t be here whining about the lack of outrage about those events if you hadn’t been reading or watching news media expressing outrage about them.
Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
Because it is the Democrats who are promoting racism as a political tactic.
Democrats have always been the party of racism. From slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow, and segregation. The leader of the “white” protesters at this event was an Obama supporter.
Re: Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
Hahahaha – pretty funny
Re: Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
Go back to history class please.
Re: Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
Sure sure. It’s all the democrats fault. That is if you know nothing about history you fucking tool.
Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
When these organizations start promoting a racist agenda I’ll express outrage. Since it hasn’t happened there’s no need.
OTOH, the Charlottesville racists deserve all the scorn and disdain we can manage to heap on them.
Re: Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
There are some sub-groups of the black lives matter movement that intentionally exclude non-blacks from BLM events because having white people present supporting them screws with their attempt to make their political platform all about race.
Re: Re: Re: Some Racism is More Equal Than Other...
and this upsets you?
“None of this, by the way, should be confused with doxxing”
It’s literally the textbook definition of doxxing: “search for and publish private or identifying information about (a particular individual) on the Internet, typically with malicious intent.”
Re: Re:
Except (so far) all they have gathered is publicly available information.
Re: Re: Re:
Except doxxing has always been about publicly available information. It’s just that most of the time nobody goes to the trouble to collect it except when doxxing someone.
So yeah, this IS doxxing.
Re: Re:
Ummmm – no.
Not the same thing.
In one case, the person is in public, had a photo taken and the rest is history.
The other (nebulous) case involves someone who is at home surfing the web and comments in a blog or something which triggers someone else to start “doxxing”
See the diff?
Re: Re: Re:
There is no ‘diff’.
Both are taking part in a public forum, both are expressing their opinions in public, and both involve linking publicly available identifying information to a semi-anonymous individual in an attempt to ruin their life.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wrong.
In public, people take pictures – if you happen to be in one, tough shit.
In your home, those same people are not taking pictures and therefore you would not be in one.
How are these two items the same thing?
racist
Don’t give this racist a forum for his hate.
He is only reporting white people and not reporting black people engaged in violence at this event.
Techdirt should be ashamed of this promotion of racist hate speech.
Re: racist
lol
Re: racist
You are at the wrong website if you expect anyone but the nuts here, to take your horseshit seriously.
Re: racist
Username on point.
Dammit, when it’s an abstract concept, you use "less." Less time, less money, less trouble. When it’s something you can count, like Nazis, the word is Fuhrer.
Er, that is, "fewer." I meant to say "fewer Nazis."
Better to have free speech
and allow those we think are evil and immoral to open their mouths and remove all doubt, rather than remaining silent!
Re: Better to have free speech
Absolutely. The Techdirt policy of hiding posts they don’t agree with is stupid in the extreme. Their excuses and justifications just move them further up on the stupid scale.
Re: Re: Better to have free speech
Dawww someone got flagged for being little spammer.
Re: Re: Re: Better to have free speech
How do you tell if you’ve been flagged (serious question)?
Re: Re: Re:2 Better to have free speech
There will be a comment that states “this post was hidden by the community”.
You can still opt to show the comment and read it. The flagging is pretty harmless, but I have witnessed brigading in here as well.
I usually read the posts because I am curious. I have even been flagged a few times. People will quickly call others a troll based on zero merit as well. I have even see people get flagged for abusive content when they were the ones that started the abuse.
It’s the internet, you get all types here.
Re: Re: Re:3 Better to have free speech
So even a single person who clicks the red flag hides the comment for everybody? Or is it a count, or are there some people who are moderators? I have seen comments go and then come back, how does that happen?
Re: Re: Re:4 Better to have free speech
I hear it’s a threshold, and sometimes people decide to remove their flagging vote, which can push the vote coint back under that level and unhide the comment.
Re: Re: Re:5 Better to have free speech
I don’t know – I repeatedly have seen half a dozen or more comments disappear, one by one, on the same article, within a few minutes. It looks to me like a single individual scrolls down the page, hides a comment, and moves to the next. It appears impossible, from the records, that it is the activity of a group, the coordination is just impossible. That’s OK, I’m sure Mike is preserving all the records so we can all take a look later to see what the truth is. There are logs, no doubt, that tell the whole story.
Re: Re: Re:6 Better to have free speech
Out of the blue just hates it when his spam is flagged.
Re: Re: Re:7 Better to have free speech
I saw in the comments of I think another article that Techdirt gets over 1M views a month. If even 1% of that hits the little red flag on the blatant idiocy in the comments, that could end up triggering the hide quickly enough.
Re: Re: Re:8 Better to have free speech
We counted once. It seems that it takes 5 flags to hide a comment.
Re: Re: Re:4 Better to have free speech
It’s a purely democratic system. When ‘enough’ votes have been entered to hide something, it gets hidden. Given how many people read the site, it can happen very quickly.
Since people can be recognized even when posting anonymously by their writing style, those who have made enemies will see everything they post flagged by those enemies.
Re: Re: Re:5 Better to have free speech
No, don’t buy it. I have several measurements of comments being hidden, one by one, in order, within a period of less than a minute. This was a single moderator hiding the comments he or she didn’t like. No way it was an accumulation of readers, it’s really impossible, and I have more than one recorded measurement.
The other truth, that comments are hidden because of the identity of the poster, shouts out another fact about this site: Identity based censorship. Disgusting. Un-American. Ideas are not considered objectively, instead certain “dangerous” people are censored. Pitiful and disgusting for a public forum, especially when this kind of censorship is hidden by the slimy “Tip of Google”.
From Wikipedia:
> Doxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents), or doxxing, is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifiable information (especially personally identifiable information) about an individual or organization
So yeah, digging up the personal information on demonstrators, no matter how abhorrent their beliefs, qualifies as doxing. It doesn’t matter if the person puts their own information out there themselves, unless they connect it themselves it is doxing, especially once employers and colleagues are being contacted/harassed.
Nothing, and I mean **NOTHING** justifies this kind of mob “justice”. The only justifiable reason for doxing is if a serious crime is being committed, and then only sending information to law enforcement and/or journalists that can actually do something about it responsibly without catching innocent people in the crosshairs. If the same victims of doxing here were to do this to a mosque or a pride parade they would be (very rightly) condemned to hell and back. So why is mob “justice” and guilt by association all of a sudden okay because of who the victims are?
The saddest part of this: all this kind of harassment is going to do is justify and embolden the beliefs that Neo-Nazis concoct for themselves to explain why their lives are so awful. It is going to further push away and radicalize white supremacists the same way that ISIS uses islamophobia to rally people to die for their cause and spread violence and hate. If this type of harassment continues it will lead to more attacks and more violence.
The best way to deal with hate is to be polite and kind. Let them spew their ignorance, respond to it politely and elegantly, and maybe someday they’ll confront the real reason they embrace such ignorance. By pushing them deeper into hate, it guarantees that it will breed and fester and eventually boil over. By showing compassion, even when you don’t think it’s warranted, maybe they’ll change someday. Don’t think this can work? Google the name Daryl Davis and tell me with a straight face that compassion doesn’t work.
Re: Re:
Did the guy who took the picture “dig up info” or was that someone else?
Is publishing pictures DOXXing? If so, our news media will have to change their methods of reporting. They could hire sketch artists to draw the thing they would like to show you on tv but can not due to the potential for DSOXXing someone in the crowd. Possibly someone cheating on their spouse, ditching school … you get the idea. I doubt the police will be forced to use sketch artists though, they will be given qualified immunity from DOXXing charges due to their copcam.
I hope someone comes up with a yesyoureafascist page to out those antifa punks..
Re: Re:
Nothing’s stopping you. Other than competence, money, a desire to finish what you start, or anyone to give a shit.
Re: Re: Re:
This would be fighting stupidity more with stupidity, not a good plan. Just give the Justice Department a little time, they are well on the path to identify and prosecute the violent Anti-Fa protesters.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ya, a chill pill is really needed right now or things will just escalate into more problems where each irrational act that occurs turns more usually rational people into ugly angry folks until everyone is pissed off and acting irrationally.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Just give the Justice Department a little time, they are well on the path to identify and prosecute the violent Anti-Fa protesters.”
Good
And they had better not bother any of those nazi white supremists who were quietly demonstrating in a peaceful manner not bothering anyone when those thugs showed up and started assaulting the defenseless people holding their torches.
Re: Re:
That’s going to be a pretty boring twitter page, having nothing to tweet.
Ummmmm
I guess I’m gonna be watching Techdirt for more stories like this and if they show up I’ll be done reading.
You really believe that identifying racists publicly is so valuable that the handful of misidentifications that will happen is completely not a problem.
I suppose its an old take on that “better a guilty man go free than an innocent be persecuted” only now its more like “oops sorry we burned your hose down when you were in it dude, you totally resemble a guy who’s racist. So sorry…”
How bout we go back to ignoring neo-nazi’s and let the tiny number of them yell at the wind, while we go about our lives than tear the entire country asunder….
Re: Ummmmm
As a fellow American (I assume you are American) I would encourage you to stay. The best counter-argument to brazenly stupid speech is more speech to compare and contrast . Point out their ridiculous arguments, please, it’s good for the country. Kind of fun, too. 🙂
Re: Ummmmm
I’m sure they’re devastated.
Re: Re: Ummmmm
Yes, you’re quite right, they were completely devastated with the last election, and still have not recovered (and never will). The whole Google Globalist agenda that Techdirt shamelessly promotes has lost the support of the majority of the American public, as aptly demonstrated by the last election, and the change in commentary right here. But they ain’t seem nuttin yet, wait for the next election. That will be devastated squared. MAGA
Re: Re: Re: Ummmmm
Careful the Nazis might not even finish in your mouth if you appear too eager.
Re: Re: Re:2 Ummmmm
A proud representive of this site (above) speaks at the level that this site appreciates and does not censor. Again. Typical. That’s the level of intellectual discussion in this toilet that is encouraged. Left-Wing Typical.
Re: Re: Re: Ummmmm
lol you don’t even what a majority is.
Re: Re: Re:2 Ummmmm
I think I do. I simply discount all the illegal aliens in California that voted illegally. There you go.
Re: Re: Re:3 Ummmmm
Haha, whatever lies you have to tell yourself.
Re: Re: Re:4 Ummmmm
Well, you would agree that Google, Facebook and the like have pretty much bought California, right? They have their globalist fantasy fully in place, ready to replicate all over the world. I think sometimes they forget that even they do business only with permission of the government (voted in by people), which can be revoked at any time. For example, Tucker Carlson’s latest segment about Google, priceless, right? Regulate them as a utility so they can quit slanting the world to their left leaning immature views. Good idea, right? You’d agree, right?
Re: Re: Re:5 Ummmmm
No, I typically don’t agree with crazy people.
Re: Re: Re:6 Ummmmm
So what’s your view? Did you see that fellow who Google fired? He had a lot to say about how totalitarian, dictatorial and generally un-American Google was from the inside, and I think he would know that, right? So Google has that guy calling them out, Techdirt is in court and on public display as “the tip of Google”, and I hear there are other related cases coming to bear quite soon that sound quite un-American to my ear. What do you think? Sincere question, really. Tucker seemed really incensed about Google, and I think rightly so.
Re: Re: Re:7 Ummmmm
My view is that there is no point in discussing anything with a non-credible concern troll.
Re: Re: Re:8 Ummmmm
Not American, right? That’s ok. We tend to talk about stuff more here, not everybody is like that. See you later. MAGA
Re: Re: Re:9 Ummmmm
Oh Hamilton. The only tip here is the tip of Shivas bellend tickling your tonsils.
Re: Re: Re:3 Ummmmm
Trump was not born in USA. He is a black muslim from New York (in Moscow).
If the conspiracy theory cauldron of Braitbart is to be taken serious, we might as well reject reality and substitute our own, like they do!
Re: Re: Re:4 Ummmmm
and here I thought he was from Mars, I had this cut from Slim Whitman’s “Indian Love Call all ready to play.
Because a Social Media Mob is always on the side of angels...
Unless you happen to be, say, Zoë Quinn or Brianna Wu, Angeles Maldonado or Bret Weinstein.
"These are just horrible anecdotes, the general principle is okay" you say. But that’s only because the mob du jour espouses opinions you agree with. If the mob is the neo-nazis doxxing the anti-fa’s and suddenly you find the mob despicable.
Do you really, really feel that you should be striving to ruin someone’s life because you disagree with their opinion? Are you ready for the same standard to be applied to you?
Re: Because a Social Media Mob is always on the side of angels...
Nice strawman you’re talking to there.
Re: Re: Because a Social Media Mob is always on the side of angels...
What is it about his post that makes it a straw man argument? I can’t see it.
If anyone here is building a straw man, it would seem to be you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Re: Re: Re: Because a Social Media Mob is always on the side of angels...
It’s because you’re colourblind.
Really...
Vigilantism by any other name, still smells like chaos. Mob justice, whatever you want to call it, its still intimidation and harassment. Racism is disgusting, I completely agree. So is this. This is not fighting words with words, there is no debate between people. Say you do have the “right” information, you call and get the guy fired… now what? He got fired, maybe doesn’t even know why (thank you Right To Work!) and has to find a new job. Say he DOES know why? Is either scenario likely to change his mind about other races? What do you do next? Do you move to the next target and forget him? Do you keep an eye out and inform his next employer?
How do you get to the goal of ending racism this way? Cause this just makes them hide again, makes them skulk and plan and act in unsavory and devious ways to avoid being outed again. That’s pretty stupid, to draw them out into the light then suddenly make them run for the shadows again, its a damned hollow victory that does nothing to fix the actual problem of addressing racism, and the ridiculous reasons for it, and create a society of tolerance and peace.
I don’t advocate this at all and I am damned surprised to find that so many I looked up to as intelligent and reasonable beings are cheering this behavior on.
Re: Really...
I, for one one am all for making the Klan put their hoods back on in fear of being outed. When they get bold enough to walk out in broad toarchlight is when they start getting really dangerous.
Re: Really...
It’s especially stupid, since an awful lot of those racist groups claim they are being deliberately targeted and persecuted by a racial conspiracy for their courage in telling people the ‘truth’.
Many of those groups are violent and really only lack a solid, valid target to go from obnoxiously loud to guerilla warfare.
Do people really think that proving to them that such a conspiracy really exists is a good idea? That having people like Popehat out in front of that conspiracy as figureheads will end well for anyone?
Re: Re: Really...
If history is any guide it won’t end well for them.
Losers don’t deserve statues ? When do we take MLK and Rosa Parks statues down since segregation is back on the menu ?https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/35536/
How about we destroy any statue of a founding father that owned slaves ?
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-and-Slavery-1269536
Winners get to rewrite history right ?
Re: Re:
It’s funny you mention MLK, since the doctrine of color blindness he believed in and fought for all his life is now considered to be a form of racism. Looking at the content of their character instead of the color of their skin is considered racism. Seriously.
The reasoning goes that people are shaped by the societal and economic forces in their childhoods, so ignoring those forces when judging someone for the way they behave as adults becomes racism because you don’t give violent thugs a pass for having bad childhoods. The problem is that white people can have bad childhoods too, but they don’t get a pass for it under any circumstances. Even if they had worse experiences than a black guy, the black guy gets the pass, not the white guy.
The civil rights movement has wrapped around the end of the scale and has circled back to racism. But they’re not fighting against it, they’re fighting for it. I read an article not too long ago about a black guy arguing in favor of ‘separate but equal’ segregation in schools, who could not understand why any sane person would disagree with him.
Re: Re: Re:
This is nonsense.
King said that he had a dream that we would one day live in a nation where people would be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. He sure as hell didn’t say that we were currently living in such a nation.
King wrote that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him" (source) and "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas" (source).
King did indeed believe in eventually becoming a colorblind society. But he also believed that in order to get there we would have to confront and correct racial discrimination first. He believed in affirmative action and reparations. You’re taking a single famous quote out of context and suggesting that he believed the opposite of what he actually believed. Stop it.
You can disagree with Martin Luther King if you like; that’s fine. But don’t twist his words to make it sound like you’re not.
I notice you haven’t linked or named a source, but assuming it’s true, you’re talking about a boneheaded statement by one person. Do you have any evidence that this is a mainstream position in the African-American population?
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: "Bad Childhoods"
judging someone for the way they behave as adults becomes racism because you don’t give violent thugs a pass for having bad childhoods. The problem is that white people can have bad childhoods too, but they don’t get a pass for it under any circumstances.
I think bad childhood is too general a term to explain all that is going on.
Yes, everyone is at risk for having a bad childhood, but that can include a number of issues, from a sexually abusive guardian to growing up in the middle of a gang war.
My own perspective grows from a conversation with a Latina about our respective pasts. I grew a white latchkey kid isolated in a white homogeneous neighborhood. She grew up in a mixed-race household where both her parents were drug-addicted, crazy and abusive. Interestingly, she knew even as a toddler that her parents were whacked. I grew up believing my lifestyle was normal, and that my failure to thrive in it was on me. And it took her to point that out.
But racial minorities grow up with a specific kind of bad childhood, in which the police are antagonistic to the neighbors. In fact, because the police tend to cause more trouble, those neighborhoods can’t rely on the precinct to maintain the police, which is where street gangs fit in.
That’s going to make a very different person than one who’s been raised where the law enforcement officers are part of the community.
Also, there are countless stories of rich white guys who got into mischief as a child or young adult (and in some cases as an old adult) and then got bailed out by a few phone calls from dad. Typically, it’s an addendum to their official biography, but it’s common enough to be a known phenomenon. Depending on the county, those of us of modest means would not get such leniency, let alone minorities. It’s really easy to wind up disgraced, and thereby unable to get even a half-decent job. Of course, we don’t have statistics of how often magical dads provide get-out-of-jail-free cards. That sort of thing doesn’t make it to the reports.
Re: Re: Re: "Bad Childhoods"
My view on "bad childhoods" is that, while the circumstances into which you are born don’t determine the path you will take, thus relieving you of all responsibility for your choices, they do limit the possible paths that you can take.
Look at that young man who turned against his white supremacist father’s ideas after going to college, or the young woman who disavowed the WBC after speaking to some of the people she had learned to call "evil." On the one hand, their upbringing limited the choices that they had, so it’s no surprise that they ended up following the paths their parents placed them on. On the other hand, their destinies clearly weren’t set in stone by that upbringing, as they were able to break free.
So, no, neither white supremacists nor gang members should "get a pass" for being "violent thugs." No matter how much your choices are limited, you still have a choice not to commit violence (although perhaps the alternative presented to you is death by violence, or death by starvation, or something equally horrible).
On the other hand, I think that any discussion on how to fix the issues of gang violence or violent white supremacists should look at what choices the people involved are being limited to. And historically, and almost certainly to this day, anyone born in the U.S. with not-white skin has had fewer, more restrictive paths than someone in a similar situation born with white skin.
Obviously, the path forward, to solve the problem of violence, is to provide better opportunities, and to eliminate the things that limit people to the undesirable choices, until violence becomes not just a less desirable option, but a completely undesirable action. However, properly choosing the things to eliminate, the things that destroy opportunities rather than create them, and properly choosing the things to create to provide opportunities… Sadly, that’s not so simple. And tragically, when you do identify such a beneficial change, getting support to implement it is often deemed impossible, due to tradition, or culture, or funding, or just plain "political realities."
Perhaps, one day, we’ll live in a world where everyone is born with equal opportunities, and the pressure to live a life of violence will be so weak that no one will bow to it. I certainly don’t see how to get to that world from here, though.
You took my civil rights. I have no part in this.
Rare situation where both a Techdirt writer and Popehat end up sort of on the wrong side of something.
Let’s replace the term “nazi” with “gay” or “transsexual” or “jewish”. Under other circumstances and other times, outing people in any of these categories (which different societies have decided are wrong) would be the kiss of death – or at least would screw their life up solid. Heck, to this day, it’s almost impossible for a NFL player to admit he’s gay – and outing a player might be enough to drive him from the league.
Let’s be clear here. These neo-nazi f–ktards are the space between the barrel and the ground. They are lower than the low, stuck on a concept and situation that most of us have grown past. However, as I said, replace “black” with “gay” or “transsexual” and a whole bunch more people would be in the bottom of the barrel bitching about things.
Outing them is dangerous. Mistakenly outing someone who is not in fact involved would be more than dangerous, it could be both life changing and perhaps fatal. The act of falsely outing them would almost certainly be actionable. Nobody needs to go there.
So while perhaps in some happy way we appreciate the idea of the outing them, reality says it’s a very, very, bad idea – and it really is playing the game on their level. It’s their home field and they usually win there.
Re: Re:
It’s really not all that rare; you think Techdirt takes the wrong side on everything.
Or, by definition, you have to be contrarian to encourage discourse or something, because if you’re right all the time your brain atrophies, or whatever moral panic you want to suggest. So always challenge anything and everything!
Re: Re:
Another rare situation: I actually agree with your post, almost completely.
One caveat: these people are in public, screaming and making a deliberate scene. I can hardly call it “outing” to simply identify people in pictures. And that goes for “gay” or “transsexual” or “pickyourgroup”.
However, contacting people’s jobs goes WAY beyond the pale no matter how you think about the initial identification.
I believe very strongly in the Constitution – particularly the right to hold your own opinions and beliefs. Unfortunately, that extends to racism and other generally stupid points of view.
I came to Techdirt because I appreciated your coverage of First Amendment views. I even turned off my adblocker (literally the only site on the entire Internet for which I have done that) in order to support your fight against the email “inventor” lawsuit.
After the unacceptable behavior in Charlottesville, I come here and see this post, encouraging vigilantism for someone’s beliefs – whether they broke the law or otherwise.
Color me disappointed.
To begin with, what will be the next unacceptable viewpoint which we crowdsource SJW in an effort to get people fired from their jobs or kicked out of Universities? Will potentially losing their job change their bigoted point of view? Doubtful.
Universities are commonly known as places where your world-view is challenged by knowledge and situations in which you may never have found yourself. What if attending College would have exposed a Neo-Nazi to facts and realities in which they realized how ugly and wrong their hatred was? Instead, they are wrongfully kicked out of school, and that opportunity to possibly change them into a better person is lost.
Racism and other unpopular viewpoints should not be punished as a belief. Punish actions which violate the law – not thought. At least one of them is suspected of murder – punish that. Several of them are on video committing assault and battery – punish that. Punish each and every one of them that can be found by a jury to have broken the law.
This effort makes no distinction between Constitutionally-protected opinions, and illegal actions. As much as people may hate to admit it, it is likely that there are Neo-Nazis who attend this rally who did not actually break any laws. People who marched and expressed their hatred, but did not assault anyone. Peaceful! expression of your beliefs is supposed to be protected behavior in this country. Again – those who were not peaceful, those who broke the law – punish them.
SJW vigilantism isn’t a solution. It isn’t even part of a solution, because it solves nothing. It won’t change their views (most likely). It doesn’t expose them to the reality that the rest of us live in. All it will do is confirm their beliefs, because a Jew got them fired, or a liberal snowflake got them fired, or whomever they wish to assign blame to.
Because they most certainly will not assign blame to themselves until their core belief system has been changed, and this campaign doesn’t address that at all.
Re: Re:
“what will be the next unacceptable viewpoint which we crowdsource SJW in an effort to get people fired from their jobs or kicked out of Universities?”
Apart from the use of that stupid acronym, which always outs the person talking as being a bit of a moron, this encapsulates something about which you are failing to think:
Why is merely being identified as someone with a particular viewpoint enough for you to get fired or kicked out in the first place?
Being someone who’s been mostly employed in countries where a company legally has to have an actual reason to fire a person, maybe I’m a little spoiled. But, I’ve never had a hobby or viewpoint that’s ever been a reason for someone to think of firing me. I’ve certainly never done anything in public that I thought would put me at risk of such.
The issue at hand is that someone openly racist enough to join a Nazi march in full public view might be fired if their employer find they are openly Nazi sympathisers. That they do so with so little regard to secrecy that they don’t even bother wearing the bedsheets their predecessors would have work to hide their identity. That they’re so invested that they will travel hundreds or thousands of miles to be counted among the Nazis.
If a person does this, there’s only a couple of real conclusions an employer can make once they discover the fact. One is that the person’s views are obviously so strongly and honestly held that it will inevitably cause some problems with co-workers and clients. The other is that the person either doesn’t care who finds out, or is so utterly stupid that they believed that in the age of social media nobody would find out who the people attending a very public internationally reported event would be.
If an employer or college decides that they don’t wish someone this full of hate and ignorance to be within their ranks, then so be it. You don’t keep the scum of the earth around you where they can cause damage to everyone else just because it’s somehow mean to treat them as the racist scum they are.
“Because they most certainly will not assign blame to themselves until their core belief system has been changed, and this campaign doesn’t address that at all.”
No, it doesn’t. Those attitudes won’t change overnight, and this kind of ignorant hatred is often generational. That doesn’t mean you keep people in positions where they can act out their hatred. An abused spouse might keep their partner around because they think they can change them given time, but sometimes it’s far better just to kick the wife beater out of the house. Better still if they find out about his tendencies before he’s started abusing her in the first place.
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t appreciate being called a moron. If you can’t make an argument without directly insulting me, please move along.
You support firing someone, or kicking them out of college, because you don’t like their viewpoints. How many jobs should they be kicked out of? All of them, or just the one they have now? How are you helping bring about change? Since you skipped over the conclusion of my original post:
How are you solving anything?
What viewpoints of yours might be next on the list of deserving firing, or homelessness because of? You don’t think you have any, but that’s not for you to decide based on your support of this behavior. Someone completely unrelated to the employer-employee relationship is deciding to try and get someone else fired. So you cannot possibly be sure that you aren’t on that list someday.
You’re also in favor of punishing people for potential future behavior based on ideology. How about we punish people for what they actually do, rather than what you think they might do someday in the future? Personally, I’m very much in favor of allowing people to work diligently and reliably at whatever job they have if they follow company policy and behave appropriately while they represent that business. I am not in favor of Minority Report future-crime thought-police.
Finally, suggesting that someone doesn’t deserve an education if they’re racist is beyond the absurd. Education is precisely what combats racism and ignorance.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“I don’t appreciate being called a moron”
Don’t act like one, then.
“You support firing someone, or kicking them out of college, because you don’t like their viewpoints.”
No, because I don’t like the actions they take because of their viewpoints. Racist? I don’t like that but we might be able to work together. Attend racist rallies that are reported internationally with your face plastered everywhere? Well, that not only reflects very badly on my company but will definitely cause problems with fellow employees, suppliers and customers. Better not have you working for me.
Do you get that, or do you need me to use smaller words?
“Personally, I’m very much in favor of allowing people to work diligently and reliably at whatever job they have if they follow company policy and behave appropriately while they represent that business.”
Me too. Being vocally and proudly racist at Nazi gatherings does violate that somewhat.
“You’re also in favor of punishing people for potential future behavior based on ideology”
No, again I’m in favour of punishing people for their actions. This really isn’t hard.
“I am not in favor of Minority Report future-crime thought-police.”
Good thing I state that it’s for actions already taken then, isn’t it?
“Finally, suggesting that someone doesn’t deserve an education if they’re racist is beyond the absurd. Education is precisely what combats racism and ignorance.”
True, but everybody else in that class deserves education as well. If you being a knuckle-dragging Nazi jeopardises that for everybody else, you’re out, sorry.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
I suggest you read your own arguments and cease the ad hominem logical fallacies. It reflects rather poorly on you, and makes your arguments easy to dismiss.
"One is that the person’s views are obviously so strongly and honestly held that it will inevitably cause some problems with co-workers and clients."
Future tense.
"You don’t keep the scum of the earth around you where they can cause damage to everyone else just because it’s somehow mean to treat them as the racist scum they are."
Again, future conditional tense.
"Good thing I state that it’s for actions already taken then, isn’t it?"
Clearly you cannot decide whether to punish them for potential future problems, or past actions.
Again, read your own words. Attending a racist rally in this country is within the law. People are not generally fired for lawful behavior, so once again you’re referring to thought-crimes and presumed problems in the future, despite your insults and claims to the contrary.
"True, but everybody else in that class deserves education as well. If you being a knuckle-dragging Nazi jeopardises that for everybody else, you’re out, sorry."
Before you were in favor of kicking them out because they were racist, then it’s because they attended a rally, now you claim "if" they jeopardize learning they should be kicked out.
So which is it? Kick them out for exercising their First Amendment rights? or kick them out only if they cause issues, or kick them out because you believe they will possibly cause issues?
And for the third time: How does this solve anything? You keep avoiding that question, as though you have no answer to it and hope it will just go away.
If you can’t respond without insults, don’t bother. I expected a better level of discourse from the users of this site than the rest of the internet, and won’t waste any more of my time on someone who blatantly refuses to express themselves politely because they can hide behind a computer screen.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
“Future tense”
Yes. Based on action that has already taken place. You’re seriously saying that once the employee has been exposed as an active Nazi, you can’t fire him until the clients start saying they are choosing a competitor because they don’t like the fact that you hire Nazis? The action of proudly showing the world that you are a Nazi has already taken place, the question is merely how much damage can be avoided.
“Clearly you cannot decide whether to punish them for potential future problems, or past actions.”
No, everything I’ve stated is based on an action that has taken place. This really isn’t hard.
It seems you are the one who needs to read my arguments. It’s very clear.
“Attending a racist rally in this country is within the law”
An action does not have to be illegal for an employer to take action against you for it.
“People are not generally fired for lawful behavior”
Bullshit. There are millions of examples where this is not the case. For example, if I tell my manager she’s a fat bitch and needs to teach her husband to pull out before they have any more bratty kids, everything I say is legal. I may well not be gainfully employed soon after that, depending on your local rules and employment contract.
You can be fired for all sorts of legal activity, from being a lazy git who refuses to pull his weight to actively doing things to offend or annoy clients and co-workers. Marching in a Nazi parade fits the latter definition.
“Before you were in favor of kicking them out because they were racist, then it’s because they attended a rally, now you claim “if” they jeopardize learning they should be kicked out.”
Are you actually too stupid to understand the connections between these things and where the line is drawn? Seriously? This is a simple through line, no argument is being changed.
“Kick them out for exercising their First Amendment rights?”
The First Amendment only states that the government cannot suppress you, not that a private entity can’t take action. The law also guarantees freedom of association, so if your class/company wishes not to associate with you any longer, that’s their right as much as it is yours to say the things that causes the problems in the first place. The exceptions to this are you being fired as part of a protected class, Nazi is not a protected class so they’re fine.
If you’re offended by me calling you a very mild name regarding your inability to understand a clear argument, you’ve doing a very good job of earning that label.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Your representation of the techdirt community as a first contact is less than impressive. You cannot behave yourself and choose to insult people because your arguments are weak and ineffective.
And before you call anyone else names, know that it is in fact illegal in my state and many others to fire someone for lawful behavior, including political or ideological activism.
A moron wouldn’t know that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/08/16/can-private-employers-fire-employees-for-going-to-a-white-supremacist-rally/?utm_term=.a0d047de9e55
Looks like you’re wrong – again. And you still never answered my question. I wonder why not…
Insults are insults, no matter how mild you feel your name-calling is. Learn to comport yourself better.
Ignored.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
Jason, in your state it may be illegal to fire someone for lawful behavior.
How about when they fire you because “We would lose business if they found out we employed a racist.”
Not fired for being a racist, fired because they would lose business, same result, perfectly legal.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
“Jason, in your state it may be illegal to fire someone for lawful behavior.”
It’s legal to do that almost everywhere. It’s perfectly legal to sleep, but even in the EU where I work that has massive protections in favour of employees you can bet your ass I’ll be fired for doing that on the job.
That comment is all you need to know about how far from the real world this idiot is living.
“Not fired for being a racist, fired because they would lose business, same result, perfectly legal.”
In the examples he’s complaining about, people aren’t being fired for that. They’re being fired because they were on international news proudly proclaiming to be a Nazi. The idea that a company shouldn’t fire someone like that until they actually start losing the company business boggles the mind.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“The idea that a company shouldn’t fire someone like that until they actually start losing the company business boggles the mind.”
What is congress waiting for? Are they going to put off impeachment until after war breaks out? What is the line that needs to be crossed before trump is fired?
Re: Re: Re:8 Re:
That line is in one of two places:
* The same place as the line which convinces the “base” which got Trump elected and is still (in some politically-relevant sense) loyal to him to not merely turn against him, but do so in a way which is clearly visible to Republicans in Congress.
* The same place as the line which convinces Republicans in Congress that they can continue to be re-elected without the support of that “base”.
The former line appears to be getting closer (which in turn may be bringing the latter closer), but judging from the rate of change of poll numbers, both are still a long way off.
Of course, impeachment could still happen without crossing either of those lines; all that would need to happen is for Congress to get turned over to a non-Republican majority. Unfortunately, by demographics and gerrymandering, that seems a highly unlikely prospect this next midterm election year.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“Your representation of the techdirt community as a first contact is less than impressive”
I represent myself and myself only. I call out idiocy and lies at every opportunity, and you have been found lacking.
“And you still never answered my question.”
Which question was that? Sorry if I missed it among all the other moronic rambling I answered, like your truly stupid assertion that someone can’t be fired for otherwise legal activity.
(link)
First fucking sentence of the article:
“That turns out to depend on the state where the employee is employed”
So, yes they can fire someone for just that as long as the state doesn’t stop them. Are you really that stupid?
“Ignored”
I’m sorry if the truth offends you to the point where you have to hide from the real world.
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Not to mention that the poster admittedly won’t even engage in a debate if there is an insult, regardless of the content of the argument. Like some sort of ad hominem fallacy fallacy that swallows its own logic.
Snowflakes, indeed.
When will these anonymous commenters learn that ad hominem attacks in themselves don’t invalidate an argument; they’re simply irrelevant in most cases.
In other words OP, PaulT called you a moron AND dismantled your argument point by point. There’s no fallacy unless the ad hominem itself is the only counterpoint.
And if you can’t follow that, well, you probably are a moron.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
I see you are also unable to behave yourself in a civilized manner and hold a reasonable conversation.
I won’t waste my time with someone who behaves in that manner, regardless of how sensitive you believe I am on the subject.
If you cannot or will not present an argument without resorting to insults, then your argument isn’t worth listening to.
Also, my position on the matter has neither been debunked, nor has my most obvious (repeated three times) question even been addressed.
So you can be ignored as well. If you care for people to communicate with you, then you ought to learn to do so without insults.
Best of luck.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
It’s nice that you found an excuse to ignore all the arguments made against your idiotic comments and instead retreated into the warm blanket of ignorance. Just don’t be too shocked when the real world finally hits you, it seems that every idea you hold in your head will be quickly and brutally proven wrong.
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
“When will these anonymous commenters learn that ad hominem attacks in themselves don’t invalidate an argument; they’re simply irrelevant in most cases. “
Never
Re: Re: Re:6 Re:
Surely you see the irony of you – a literal Anonymous Coward by label, complaining about someone who registered an actual account being an Anonymous Coward?
It doesn’t invalidate the entire argument. It weakens it, and makes it easy enough to see that the person making the argument isn’t worth the time or effort to have a reasonable conversation with in the first place, because they are unwilling or incapable of behaving like an adult.
I’m not here to waste my time trading insults on a playground. If you want to have a civil discussion, do so. If not, don’t expect anyone to take you seriously or care what you have to say.
Re: Re: Re:7 Re:
“It doesn’t invalidate the entire argument.”
No, facts invalid whatever argument you had. You just threw a tantrum because the people telling you the truth were big old meanies about it.
You’re in for a shock whenever you start working for a living, let me tell you.
Everyone is racist. The only difference between people is that some know this, others don’t.
Re: Re:
I’m not. I went to the trouble to self-examine and found all the dark little corners where racism lives and gave them a good scrubbing using knowledge and reason. Few people bother, because the insidious nature of racism is that you feel like you’re doing the right thing when being racist.
It always amuses me (in an ironic and horrifying way, mind you) that there are people who have never gone to that trouble, who will declare that I cannot possibly be anything but racist, solely on the basis of the color of my skin.
Re: Re: Re:
That you sincerely believe that you can use self-examination to remove racism in your life just shows you are the biggest racist of all.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nah he’s just a garden variety Nazi apologist.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not a racist either – I have several friends that are minorities
/s jic
A lot has been written here by people with no understanding.
A few questions:
Who profits by this? Financially? Politically?
How do they profit?
Who looses? Financially? Politically?
How do they loose?
Who has the means to initiate this? One side? Both sides?
Who does the long term strategic planning ability?
Who has the means to acquire physical means?
And above all:
Who gets to play the hero?
And who gets to play villain?
Re: Re:
It’s interesting that you feel the need to couch this in terms of profit and personal gain, rather than simply not wanting to be 1930s Germany. That you talk about “physical means” rather than people not wishing to lose what has been so hard fought for over decades. I wonder why that is?
Re: Re: Re:
I don’t know. Maybe he’s mocking foreign idiot totalitarian globalists like you. It’s kind of fun.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not as fun as reading people call others “totalitarian” for daring to fight against Nazis. It takes a special kind of stupid for that to make sense.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
You did not fight against the Nazis, you poser. (Did you?) You are a totalitarian for trying to force your opinions on others. You are unconvincing because you are stupid, you ask stupid questions (“I wonder why this is”), you pose stupid answers (above) and you’re about to repeat your stupidity. Watch.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Look another proud graduate of Trump U!
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
It also takes a special kind of stupid to be unable to spot a rhetorical question when one is asked.
Re: Re: Re:3 "Totalitarian for [forcing] opinions on others"
In this case it seems totalitarian is being used in the way Hitler or Nazi was commonly used before Godwin pointed it out.
I think none of these can qualify until you’re actually using force (e.g. forcing someone to write a thing at gunpoint) to coerce someone to accept an opinion. One can argue that if you’re trying to pass a law, that’s totalitarian, or at least organizing a contingent of people to govern.
But then there’s the matter of the opinion: If you’re arguing some people should be treated differently under law than others (e.g. depriving them of the right to life, liberty or property), then you’re definitely being totalitarian, also: Nazi, racist, bigoted, anti-American, anti-democratic and ultimately working against the progress of civilization.
Re: Re: Re:
Please see:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-16/why-was-crowd-hire-company-recruiting-25-hour-political-activists-charlotte-last-wee
I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Nazis deserve EVERY single bad thing that ever happens to them: for example, if they’re injured, they should be denied medical care and left to die. (Preferably screaming in agony, but I’ll settle for just dying.) If they have a job: get them fired. If them have a home: get them evicted. If they attend a school: get them expelled.
They have no place in American society or in America. They must be exterminated. (And yes, I chose that word deliberately.)
Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Hello, TTP (Typical Techdirt Pirate), (GG) Google Globalist, and general MII (Murderous Insane Idiot). Welcome. Your line is over there to the right, with the other murderous insane idiots from the KKK. Get in it.
Re: Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
SovCitLit
Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
I’m seriously having a Poe’s Law moment here. I’m not sure if that’s honesty based on just reviling Nazis that much, or a satire of the idea that someone should be denied basic human rights and human decency due to their political views. I’m leaning towards the former, but it might be doing a better job of the latter. It’s honestly got me reconsidering my own support of Canada’s hate speech laws.
Let me just say: if this is satire, it’s extremely well done. If it’s not: you’re a horrible human being (but likely a fairly typical one, which is depressing) for wanting anyone to die screaming in agony.
Re: Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
This is not the first time Techdirt Pirates talk about wishing people to die in agony. The said the same thing about the King of Thailand. Despicable, really. Terrible people frequent this site and say terrible things, then Google broadcasts it to the whole world when they search for anything related. Techdirt describes itself as the “Tip of Google”, they smear good people all the time, Shiva, for example, and the King of Thailand. Terrible place, really. We need more sane voices here to help clean up this sewer.
Re: Re: Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
“The said the same thing about the King of Thailand.”
Hmmm… I must have missed that. I’m sure your citation will be just behind the one where you prove that you’re not just lying about people here being pirates, right?
“Terrible people frequent this site and say terrible things”
Yeah, but Mike doesn’t want to ban anonymous accounts to get rid of you, so what can we do?
“they smear good people all the time, Shiva, for example”
Sorry, the facts still say that you God king is a fraud and a liar. No amount of lying about others here will change that.
“We need more sane voices here”
Again, I agree with you. Always the same bunch of insane ACs ruining the discussion for everybody else.
Re: Re: Re:2 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Ninja (profile), 16 May 2017 @ 6:17am
Thailand ruler is a rotten piece of shit that should die a slow, agonizing death. There. I wonder if TD will receive threats for that? 😀
Re: Re: Re:3 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
While I agree that that comment was in poor taste (especially as it was not immediately clear whether it was in earnest or not), the next comment clarifies:
I can’t say that I approve of voicing such a sentiment, even when just trolling (and I’d define "posting something provocative with the intention of eliciting a hostile response" as a textbook definition of "trolling"). But I have the horrible feeling that Mr. "Fuck Nazis" might actually be speaking in earnest, though, which is definitely many, many steps further over the line than posting something similar with no hostile intent beyond a desire to troll. When reading that quote in context, I don’t get the same impression of malicious, sadistic hatred from Ninja.
I’m all about raising the level of discourse, which I don’t think that Ninja’s comment does, but I think calling Ninja a "terrible person" for posting it is probably going a bit far.
Also: I think that Techdirt has been pretty fair about airing out Shiva’s side of the story, but the facts just don’t seem to be on his side.
Re: Re: Re:4 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Well, he was insulting an entire country who feel a heartfelt love of their king, and he was doing it in a broadly published public with the clear intent to injure them. I think that says a lot about the level of discourse on Techdirt. Ninja is a hero here, he leads a large percentage of all the comments on all the articles. And by your standard, he is a troll. By my standard, worse than a troll, as he took the time to specifically single out a sensitive, personal and closely held love of a people for their king. I would not be surprised if he did it again. Google will then send it all over the world, including Thailand, where it will injure everyone who reads it. Heartless and disgusting, but a hero to the “tip of Google”, Techdirt.
Re: Re: Re:5 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Why shouldn’t Ninja be “very very famous” for this type of act, just as the article states. Why are the rights of the Thai people inferior to the rights of the Techdirt Pirates? Do you even understand how incredibly hypocritical Techdirt is? Let’s publish Ninja’s home and work address, I’ll guarantee you that no matter where he lives, I can find Thai people in the area that would be ready to voice their opinion right to his face. Why is it OK to out white supremacists, and not OK to out criminals (yes, he’s a criminal in Thailand – what he did is literally against the law). How are your special standards so noteworthy, and everyone else’s standards immaterial? Who put you in charge? Oh, I forgot, you idiots are NOT in charge. MAGA
Re: Re: Re:6 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
As a historical note, Ninja’s comment was never condemned, it was never hidden, it was never censored in any form, unlike many comments around it supporting the rights of the Thai people. Ninja’s comment, from a Thai perspective, could not be more hateful. But your hate is fine, right, you can hate anyone, publicly, in a loud voice with no consequence at all. Anyone who stands near a white supremacist is at risk to be unemployed, while you smear your clear hatred far and wide with a giggle. That’s who you people really are, and there is a public record to prove it.
Re: Re: Re:7 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
“As a historical note, Ninja’s comment was never condemned, it was never hidden, it was never censored in any form”
It was never seen. Not by me, anyway. Hard to report comments you’ve never read.
“That’s who you people really are, and there is a public record to prove it.”
No, that’s who one person has said such a thing, and it looks like that person has already apologised for it. Yet, here you are lying about everybody else commenting on this site.
Re: Re: Re:6 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Keep suckin that Trump cock. You’re only gonna get Cheetos dust for your troubles.
Re: Re: Re:5 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
“an entire country who feel a heartfelt love of their king,”
Hahahaha – good one
Re: Re: Re:3 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Am I meant to guess the thread that belongs to?
Re: Re: Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Probably just a false flag operation
Re: Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Original poster here.
Maybe you’ve forgotten, or maybe you never knew, what the Nazis stood for, what they did, and what they tried to do.
Nothing has changed in the decades since. Today’s versions are the same as those in Germany three-quarters of a century ago. They stand for the same things, they do the same things, they’re trying to do the same things.
They were our mortal enemy then, and they’re our mortal enemy now. This isn’t a political discussion like a debate over tax policies or health care; this isn’t a discussion at all. It’s a national emergency, because just a few days ago, Nazis murdered a woman on American soil and yesterday the President of the United States sided with them.
You want to be horrified? Okay. Be horrified that we’re having this conversation in 2017, 70 years after we thought we were done with these assholes.
And by the way, since I see it elsewhere in the thread: the king of Thailand licks goat assholes. 😉
Re: Re: Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
…and none of this alters OUR principles. You are willing to compromise on OUR principles because it seems expedient. This is precisely the sort of thing that allowed the Nazis to be such a problem.
You also push a bullshit version of history.
The Nazis weren’t just people who “said mean things”. They were violent thugs from the beginning. They committed criminal acts from the beginning. THOSE actions could have been dealt with. THOSE kinds of actions CAN be dealt with.
Except the media narrative has some people believing that it’s all the fault of one part of the brawl when the other part has at least one group associated with it that advocates (and carries out) political violence.
The SA weren’t alone in Weimar either. They had their version of Antifa that they fought with then.
Re: Re: Re:2 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Original poster again.
Nice equivocation. It must be so very comfortable in your bubble, where you don’t have to worry too much. But for some of us, this is an active hostile group willing to use lethal force ON US. Which they just did, in case you didn’t notice.
So enjoy your pontificating. Relax, secure in your philosophical stance. Congratulate yourself on taking the moral high ground.
But I won’t be joining you. It’s alright, you can look down on me with stern disapproval. I don’t mind.
Meanwhile, I HOPE it doesn’t come to civil war. I HOPE that the grown-ups will take over and take down Trump/Pence & Co. I HOPE that we will shut down the Nazis and the KKK and all their allies by the force of law and public courage. I HOPE that we come through this intact and in peace. I HOPE that we figure out a way to finally, good lord, finally excise the racism and bigotry that has infected our country since well before it was one. I HOPE that we’re spared another horrible chapter in our history. (Although I suppose we’re already living in one.)
But if my hopes are dashed, if it really comes to that, if there’s no choice but to fight or die: I will kill as many Nazis/Klan/white supremacists/etc. as I can before they kill me. Don’t worry, you can keep criticizing me after I’m dead — still secure and safe in your comfortable bubble, away from the fight that you lack the courage to join.
Re: Re: Re:3 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
OK now, feeling a bit grand here don’t you think? A new Civil War?
Step away from social media for a few days dude.
A couple of hundred Nazi’s from around the entire country showed up to a protest and you think that is the start of the next Civil War?
Hahahahaha, dude, seriously, take a break. It wasn’t that big a deal.
Those trying to make it a really big deal either are pushing another agenda or they have lost all touch with reality.
Re: Re: Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Pretty sure I do. And if Adolf Hitler himself stood in front of me today, I wouldn’t want him to die screaming in agony, either.
And that’s nothing to do with what he did, or how bad a person he is. It’s about the fact that he was a person. And torture is always wrong.
Part of the reason I left the Catholic Church is because I think that sentencing anyone, anyone, yes, even Hitler, to be tortured (and especially an infinite duration of torture to pay for a finite lifetime’s crimes) is the mark of a deity that is evil and does not deserve to be worshipped.
Yes, I’m horrified today that there are people who think that there who think that other people deserve to die (or worse) because of accidents of genetics and circumstance. Because they were born to people who came from different places and had different beliefs, and passed that heritage down.
I’m especially horrified to be having this conversation with you, who says that they oppose the murder and oppression and extermination done by the Nazi regime and then literally proposes doing the same thing right back to them.
Newsflash: the Holocaust wasn’t evil because the Jews were perfect people. It was evil because they were people.
The Nazis (falsely) claimed that the Jews were all kinds of horrible, to the point that they deserved to be exterminated. By your logic, since the ones carrying out the orders believed that garbage, they weren’t evil at all. That is, if your morality says "It’s okay for bad people to be tortured and killed," then, since "bad people" is an entirely subjective opinion, it’s okay to torture and kill anyone, as long as you believe they’re bad.
Myself, as I said, I think that this opinion makes you a horrible person. However, I don’t want you to die screaming in agony, despite thinking that the world would be better off without a self-righteous, sadistic egomaniac who wants to take it upon himself to decide exactly who is worth of "extermination." Why not? Because that would make me a horrible person.
People can be raised to believe all sorts of horrible things if you teach them from birth. The fact that these horrible people with horrible ideas had horrible parents is largely not their fault. That they haven’t been exposed to points of view that would allow them to change their minds is largely not their fault. That they act on those ideas, and hurt others… Well, that, obviously, is their fault. But you lose the moral high ground awfully quickly when you descend to their level.
I agree with you that this is a national emergency, that these people need to be opposed by everyone of conscience, that their ideas should be shouted down upon from every podium, every microphone, every television set, every radio, every computer screen.
But the ends never justify the means; quite on the contrary, whatever means you use to carry out your ends inevitably become ends in themselves. Spy on your enemies, and you soon have a bureaucracy that sees everyone as an enemy to be spied upon. Invade your enemies, and you end up with a military-industrial complex that sees every problem, foreign and domestic, as one to be invaded. Exterminate your enemies… I don’t want to know where that one ends up, even though, of course, I already know.
If we all join together against this threat, we can win, and we can do so using means that leave us proud of both what we’ve accomplished and how we did it in the end.
But if we become what we despise in an effort to be rid of it, then we lose, and we lose so completely that our children’s children’s children will still be cleaning up the mess. If they’re even around to do so. And, especially when victory is possible through morally acceptable means, that’s a sacrifice I’m not willing to make.
Are you?
Re: Re: Re:2 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Learn how to differentiate between a faith and the people who claim to follow it. Believe it or not, they are not always the same. Or are you saying that jesus was evil for saying that we should not hate our enemies but rather love them (in the sense of seeing them as people, not things to be destroyed. Which is also what you said to do.)?
Re: Re: Re:3 I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Are you talking about my "leaving the Catholic Church" comment?
Because Catholicism is very clear on its interpretation of Hell. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1992 (emphasis mine):
According to the apostolic constitution Fidei depositum, the Catechism is "a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith," "a sure and authentic reference text for teaching Catholic doctrine," and "what the Catholic Church believes."
For reference, an apostolic constitution is the highest level of decree issued by the Pope. It is a case "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church," and is therefore subject to papal infallibility.
So, to sum up:
There’s not much wiggle room there.
Now, I won’t argue that there might be other Christian faiths that suit my values better (and, in fact, I’ve been giving serious thought to joining the Society of Friends as a non-theist Quaker). But God, as defined by the Catholic faith (or any faith that has Him consign sinners and non-believers to "hellfire")? Evil, and unworthy of worship. Completely and uncontrovertibly.
No one gets a moral "get out of jail free" card on torture. Not even a deity. In fact, an omnipotent and omniscient being, having no limitations and a perfect understanding of good and evil, has a higher moral obligation to avoid unnecessary cruelty.
On the other hand, individual Catholics I don’t tend to have so many problems with; indeed, there are several that I respect highly, and that serve as inspirations and moral examples that I strive to imitate. I do not, as you say, have trouble differentiating between the faith and the people following it. It is the faith itself, or rather the religious organization defining that faith, that I distance myself from.
If you’re not referring to the "leaving the Catholic Church" comment… then I have no idea what part of my comment you’re replying to. It’s quite a long comment, and I was sort of writing stream-of-consciousness, so it jumps around a bit. If not the bit about Catholicism, can you please clarify what exactly in my post you’re taking issue with?
Thanks!
Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Nazis deserve every bad thing that happens to them the same way liberals, libertarians, conservatives, progressives, greens, capitalists, socialists, communists and every other ist, ian and ive does.
They dared to hold an opinion someone disagrees with, so they deserve every bad thing that happens to them. But if anyone does it to YOU, it’s evil and wrong and they’re bad people.
But where does it all end, once everyone who holds any opinion whatsoever is outed, has no job, and everyone in the country knows where they live?
Re: Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Well we will know where all the Nazi apologists live.
Re: I'm just saying...fuck Nazis
Are you actually James Woods?
employers
Employers should learn to ignore these witch hunts. Don’t join other people’s fight. It’s starts with this stuff and before you know it they call over disgusting eating habbits.
Employers should know their employees better than some stupid twitter account.
Re: employers
Some employers need to be concerned about how they are viewed by their customers, who may decide to go elsewhere.
Re: Re: employers
And what does that have to do with random unproven accusations from twitter. Because people from twitter are emailing/tweeting/calling my store to tell me employee A is racist is as good as the word of god. How are these people my customers and why should I care if they THINK they know what they are talking about
Re: Re: Re: employers
As an employer, the actions you take could have real legal consequences. Do you really want to trust some random nitwits on the web?
If you’re going to throw employees under the bus at least wait for your real customers to complain.
Re: Re: Re:2 employers
Like any of those minimum wage employers give shit about those they take advantage of.
Re: Re: Re:3 employers
Exactly, if a company fires someone over twitter-accusations, it doesn’t give a shit about their employees.
Re: Re: Re:4 employers
” if a company fires someone over twitter-accusations, it doesn’t give a shit about their employees.”
I think it was pretty obvious a long time ago that many employers do not give a shit about those they employ. And guess what, they don’t have to.
Re: Re: Re:5 employers
It’s worse than “not giving shit”. They show their very happy to use you as a scapegoat.
Re: Re: Re: employers
This.
I’d rather know a company fully supports our traditional values as a nation — namely that people have the right to say whatever they like when off the clock and not representing the company — than find out that the company thinks that person is their slave not their employee.
I won’t shop at a place that owns slaves, and neither should you.
Re: Re: Re:2 employers
“the company thinks that person is their slave”
Not literally, with whips ‘n stuff, but give them time as I’m sure they have considered using whips to get those burgers done faster.
Re: Re: Re:3 employers
The essence of slavery isn’t the whip or the torture (In history the use of corporal punishment was pretty common).
It’s the notion that slaves are commodities, not equivalent to normal people. Bergman’s comparison is actually pretty accurate.
More speech
This statue thing seems to be causing grief on all sides. I liked the response to the Wall Street bull sculpture better. Instead of taking down the statue, how about putting some statues of oppressed slaves below it? People say the existing statue is "honoring" Lee, but I’ll bet he wouldn’t look very honorable up there, on his literal high horse, with a bunch of slaves cowering below.
Re: More speech
Yeah, try putting up statues of slaves and see what the reaction to that would be.
Pretty sure they are not putting up any statues of Jews being gassed in Israel either.
Re: Re: More speech
Some people, mostly in the south, used to have statues of black people as yard ornaments. Maybe they still do.
Re: Re: More speech
Like a lot of art, the reaction would kind of be the point. There’s a giant statue of Lee which neglects to show that he was fighting for. It doesn’t have to be statues of slaves, and doesn’t have to be permanent, but can be anything that makes him look less honorable. Maybe freed people rising up, or a Bill of Rights quote making him look hypocritical, or a soldier from the other side.
Public reaction is always difficult to predict and would likely depend on the color of the person making the statement.
Re: Re: More speech
Given that we have murals of burning people in Germany commemorating WWII, I’m pretty sure that putting up statues of oppressed slaves wouldn’t be such a huge issue that it wouldn’t be possible. Depictions of suffering in a compassionate manner don’t seem that controversial to me.
Re: More speech
How about slot machines themed after Confederate General Stonewall Jackson?
Racism can be a very funny thing. Donald Silver owned the Sac. Clippers, a NBA team. His executive team was filled with blacks, something really rare in the NBA. People of color were making decisions for the team.
He was about to receive a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP for how he had advanced the lives of blacks.
Then a recording came out of him telling his (very young, hot girlfriend) how he didn’t want her being seen at games with blacks.
So he went from receiving an award from the NAACP to being banned from the NBA.
His words actually spoke louder than his actions.
I am torn on this issue.
I own a dog. If I saw someone beating a dog with much violence, I would think they are a terrible person. If they tried to harm my dog, I would kick their ass.
Should I track them down and call their employer after going to the police to have them arrested to get them jailed and fired (although the arrest might accomplish that.)
A man beats his wife, should that be reported to his employer?
Should NFL players who protest during the National Anthem be fired for protesting? It bothers the customers of the NFL, so would the owners be right in firing them?
Kaperneck (sic) doesn’t have a job, but Michael Bennet just signed a 3 year, 30 million dollar contract. He said he won’t stand for the Anthem. If his employer fired him and refused to pay the contract, do you think he should get his money?
Re: Re:
Unless he has a “standing for the anthem” clause in his contract, he would be able to sue for breach of contract and win.
On the other hand, most people working in the US do not have any sort of formal contract, much less one that prevents termination except for cause.
If you think that people should have such contracts, support your local union!
Re: Re: Re:
Ever heard of “Conduct detrimental to the league”?
If not, Google it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I hadn’t heard that specific wording, but I’m not surprised that there’s some sort of "morals clause" in the contract; it’s not that uncommon in employment contracts (from what I’ve heard – IANAL).
That said, I think that said conduct wouldn’t rise (pun fully intended) to the level where the team would win a lawsuit on the grounds that his conduct was "detrimental to the league." If the league thought that such conduct was detrimental, you’d think that it would have punished Kaepernick. Since they didn’t (beyond, you know, no one wanting to hire him), it’s pretty clear that while they don’t approve of the bevaiour, it’s not doing any damage to the League as a whole (and, in fact, the #NoKaepernickNoNFL boycott seems to indicate that any — admittedly minimal — damage being done to the league is from the not-signing, rather than the not-standing).
To bring the discussion full circle, if a player got outed by @YesYoureRacist, though, that might be something that a court might be more inclined to accept as "conduct detrimental to the league" (depending on what the pictures in question show).
Actually, the NFL ratings dropped last year and one of the reasons listed was the protests. Truthfully, Kaepernick isn’t in the league now because teams don’t think he can help them win. When he started his protest, he was a 3rd string QB.
The NFL is a horrible organization, they ignore domestic abuse, the lied to their employees about brain injury risks, they ignore drug use when it isn’t obvious, they claim, proclaim and honor the military but leave out the part where the Department of Defense is paying them millions of dollars to do so. So, fuck the NFL.
I love being full circle, so being featured on a Tweet gives something weight? Someone can do something, not get a lot of publicity and be fine, but if it gets publicity, that is where we draw the line?
I am old (probably for this place at least) but I guess it is true, perception becomes reality. Not sure that is a good thing.
Re: Re:
and they do not pay the cheerleaders a living wage while at the same time demanding sexual favors from them.
Re: Re: Re:
Is that a bad thing?
Re: Re:
Not really a football enthusiast, but FiveThirtyEight’s view of his stats differ from yours.
Of course not. A thing is right or wrong regardless of who knows about it.
However, we’re talking specifically about defending against a wrongful termination/breach of contract lawsuit by arguing that their conduct was "detrimental to the league."
If someone is privately a horrible person, and only does horrible things anonymously, that doesn’t make that person any better than a person who does the same horrible things publicly. However, before you can use those horrible things in your lawsuit as a defense for firing them, first, you need to have proof to bring into a court of law, and second, it’s kind of hard to say that some deed is "detrimental to the league" when there’s no apparent connection between the deed and the league (as the perpetrator’s identity, and thus connection to the league, has been obscured).
So, no, I think that participating in a white nationalist rally would probably be enough to get someone fired from a sports league, whether or not that got featured in a Tweet. However, that Tweet might well be what first brings that conduct to the attention of the league in question, as well as being what connects the league and white nationalism in the minds of the public at large (to the detriment of the league).
First, they came for the Nazis…
…lastly, for the vigilantes.
Who am I?