Continuation Cancel culture IRL Part 2

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

How on earth do you not understand that these are the tactics of the inquisition and the nazi part?

I suppose a holocaust denier might think losing their job and suffering some social ostacization is akin to the worst Nazi behaviors.

But anyone not blinded by hate should know better.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

I suppose a holocaust denier might think losing their job and suffering some social ostacization is akin to the worst Nazi behaviors.

But anyone not blinded by hate should know better.

Look the holocaust is like all things, something that all parents should be able to opt out their kids from learning about. I mean what if one kid knows his great granddad was a guard at the death camps? That could give him feel bads and so that is why the holocaust should not be taught.

[TurkeysGhost]

Those that don't have the stomach for extracting social costs for being an open fascist aren't going to like what usually happens when nothing is done to stop fascism.

"Cancelling" nazis is the nice way to deal with this problem. Later the solutions become much less pleasant.

[Cain]

A woman was fired after she was accused of telling a Black dog walker in Williamsburg to stay in his 'hood'

She tried claiming she never said it, but a white guy gave her up.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Cain

A woman was fired after she was accused of telling a Black dog walker in Williamsburg to stay in his 'hood'

She tried claiming she never said it, but a white guy gave her up.

Ah but what about all the problems of blacks not saying in their own neighborhoods like real estate agents try to keep. I remember how happy our neighbor was that we were a proper white couple who bought the house instead of you know.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Cain

A woman was fired after she was accused of telling a Black dog walker in Williamsburg to stay in his 'hood'

She tried claiming she never said it, but a white guy gave her up.

The best thing about this story is that the CEO of the company who fired her expressed hope that the affected parties would "find resolution" and offered to help if he could.

Who better to broker the peace than the guy who just fired her.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

The best thing about this story is that the CEO of the company who fired her expressed hope that the affected parties would "find resolution" and offered to help if he could.

Who better to broker the peace than the guy who just fired her.

That's odd. What exactly does he even mean by "resolution"?

She got fired and publicly shamed for being a racist POS. That's the resolution.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

That's odd. What exactly does he even mean by "resolution"?

She got fired and publicly shamed for being a racist POS. That's the resolution.

He probably means something like "I'm a narcissistic dimwit who wants to inject myself into this story for no good reason." The self-interested reason for having zero tolerance policies is so you can plausibly disassociate your brand from racism; to then re-associate your brand with the employee you just fired makes very little sense.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Cain

A woman was fired after she was accused of telling a Black dog walker in Williamsburg to stay in his 'hood'

She tried claiming she never said it, but a white guy gave her up.

Fired, and she deserved it.... racist gets consequences for her racism. Bloody good, warms my heart!

"The Joseph then turns to another man, and says "I'm sorry, you were right here watching this entire thing. Did she not just stand here and tell us to stay in our hood?"

The man in the video replies: "She did."

That bystander will now be marked by her as a "race traitor"

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

He probably means something like "I'm a narcissistic dimwit who wants to inject myself into this story for no good reason." The self-interested reason for having zero tolerance policies is so you can plausibly disassociate your brand from racism; to then re-associate your brand with the employee you just fired makes very little sense.

That is an extremely cynical attitude. You have no idea whatsoever as to what he had in mind, you're just pulling stuff you made up out of the hole between your buttocks!

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

That is an extremely cynical attitude. You have no idea whatsoever as to what he had in mind, you're just pulling stuf you made up out of the hole between you buttocks!

I have some idea as to what he had in mind, since he actually said it.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

And this is the mistake you, and people like you, keep making. Its not about "wrong beliefs" and "right beliefs", its about what we should regard as acceptable in a humane, caring and civilized society, and what should be not acceptable. In short, its not about good v bad, its about good v evil!

So... The inquisition was doing good by encouraging people to turn in their neighbors as heretics, because all non-christians are evil? The nazis were doing good by having 'good' citizens inform on their jewish aquaintances because jews are evil?

I'm still rather of the opinion that labeling beliefs as inherently evil, and then advocating and applauding the doxxing of those who hold those beliefs so that they can be persecuted is an evil tactic, regardless of how holy you think your cause is.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Personally I dont think you need the quotation marks if we’re talking about Holocaust denial.

If your neighbors found out you were running secret Holocaust denial and white supremacy sites and no longer want to associate with you, they have every right to feel that way.

Oh, I see. That totally makes sense, and completely justifies doxxing people and advocating for their social and economic persecution!

Look, I can choose not to associate with people who hold views I find execrable. Everyone should make their own choices about who they associate with, how much they are willing to accept that other people hold views they disagree with very strongly.

But that's not what this is. This isn't Joan next door finding out that Greg is a closeted nazi. This is anonymous person on the internet hacking a bunch of people and throwing their information out for everyone to see, with the express intention of ruining their lives and getting them attacked.

I don't approve of that at all, no matter how strongly I disagree with the beliefs of those who are being exposed. I strongly disagree with a *lot* of beliefs expressed here. I rather strongly disagree with the beliefs expressed by posters who advocate for or laud violence against those whose politics don't match their own, or who don't adhere to the same dogmatic partisan tenets that they espouse.

But to intentionally expose their identities and try to get them harmed, that's so much of a social transgression and I'm constantly amazed at how many people think it's just peachy.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Sorry, trying to browbeat me into some diseased worldview where one is required to be agnostic on the merits of fascism or other genocidal ideologies is not going to work.

It's both hilarious and generally good that these people who thought they were safe to go mask-off fash are suddenly getting outed to their surrounding communities.

There's a difference between being agnostic to another person's views that you strongly disagree with... and actually seeking to see them harmed - socially, economically, and potentially physically.

It's entirely possible for an intelligent and principled person to speak out and argue against fascist beliefs without actually desiring to see the fascist-belief-holder beaten into submission, rendered destitute, and deprived of society.

The advocacy for coercively ruining and threatening those with views you find abhorrent IS fascism.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Oh, I see. That totally makes sense, and completely justifies doxxing people and advocating for their social and economic persecution!

Look, I can choose not to associate with people who hold views I find execrable. Everyone should make their own choices about who they associate with, how much they are willing to accept that other people hold views they disagree with very strongly.

But that's not what this is. This isn't Joan next door finding out that Greg is a closeted nazi. This is anonymous person on the internet hacking a bunch of people and throwing their information out for everyone to see, with the express intention of ruining their lives and getting them attacked.

I don't approve of that at all, no matter how strongly I disagree with the beliefs of those who are being exposed. I strongly disagree with a *lot* of beliefs expressed here. I rather strongly disagree with the beliefs expressed by posters who advocate for or laud violence against those whose politics don't match their own, or who don't adhere to the same dogmatic partisan tenets that they espouse.

But to intentionally expose their identities and try to get them harmed, that's so much of a social transgression and I'm constantly amazed at how many people think it's just peachy.

I just wanted to say that trying to shame people for treating actual nazis like “nazis” actually treat everyone else is a pretty hot take.

Well I totally understand why of all people on the internet Nazis would want to remain anonymous. I don’t necessarily condone hacking people in principle and have mixed feelings on doxing. That said, it happened. I don’t think you can really expect everyone else not to react to finding out someone is a real life nazi. Whether Joan found out on her own or someone else told her it’s what happened. It’s a weird principal stance to expect people to carry on their personal relationships because they found out in an “unfair” way, and doubly so to expect that to be the default stance in my opinion.

But by all means, if you want to be that forgiving that you’d willingly associate with Nazis because they wanted to do it secretly I think that’s your choice to make. I think most people, rightfully, would not.

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

That's odd. What exactly does he even mean by "resolution"?

She got fired and publicly shamed for being a racist POS. That's the resolution.

I mean, you can really confidently say she is a racist POS from a 20 second clip and a description from only one side? Seems a lot to infer from a short snapshot of her life. Maybe a bit of an extreme position?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by rdwight

I mean, you can really confidently say she is a racist POS from a 20 second clip and a description from only one side? Seems a lot to infer from a short snapshot of her life. Maybe a bit of an extreme position?

https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/sta...99627761623044

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

So... The inquisition was doing good by encouraging people to turn in their neighbors as heretics, because all non-christians are evil? The nazis were doing good by having 'good' citizens inform on their jewish aquaintances because jews are evil?



I'm still rather of the opinion that labeling beliefs as inherently evil, and then advocating and applauding the doxxing of those who hold those beliefs so that they can be persecuted is an evil tactic, regardless of how holy you think your cause is.

"Rule of so" writ large.

There's a world of difference between social consequences for possessing immutable qualities and the same for wilfully chosen behaviors and actions. Registering domain names and operating websites are not "beliefs," they are actions.

Defending people who foment, support, and contribute to bigotry that brings real harm to others from consequences for doing so is an odd hill to want to die on.

But there you are, at the peak.

Wave your flag proudly, I raise one finger on each hand in salute to your noble stand.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

So... The inquisition was doing good by encouraging people to turn in their neighbors as heretics, because all non-christians are evil?

False equivalence fallacy.
Rule of So.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The nazis were doing good by having 'good' citizens inform on their jewish aquaintances because jews are evil?

False equivalence fallacy.
Rule of So

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I'm still rather of the opinion that labelling beliefs as inherently evil, and then advocating and applauding the doxxing of those who hold those beliefs so that they can be persecuted is an evil tactic, regardless of how holy you think your cause is.

When it comes to fascists, racists, bigots, white supremacists and other far right scumbags, there is no middle ground, no grey area - you are either against them or you are for them. If you claim to be agnostic regarding these groups, you are lying to yourself and are part of the problem. You become an enabler who helps to make them stronger, more powerful and more widespread. Evil thrives in darkness. It hates the light for fear that it will be exposed. People with your attitude help evil to stay hidden.

"Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion. Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
-John Stuart Mill

[Boudicca90]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

There's a difference between being agnostic to another person's views that you strongly disagree with... and actually seeking to see them harmed - socially, economically, and potentially physically.

It's entirely possible for an intelligent and principled person to speak out and argue against fascist beliefs without actually desiring to see the fascist-belief-holder beaten into submission, rendered destitute, and deprived of society.

The advocacy for coercively ruining and threatening those with views you find abhorrent IS fascism.

I used to be naïve and believed that all viewpoints were valid to express in this country and that free speech was absolute. "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." was my general viewpoint. Surely in the marketplace of ideas, the 'right' ideas will win over the 'wrong' ideas?

Real life doesn't work that way, and allowing fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists a public platform to speak and spread their filth only enables them to gain power. And people like you, who seem to see all sides as generally equal, are unwitting accomplices.

[tyr_13]

The freedom of speech isn't the only freedom.

Freedom of association also exists.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I used to be naïve and believed that all viewpoints were valid to express in this country and that free speech was absolute. "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." was my general viewpoint. Surely in the marketplace of ideas, the 'right' ideas will win over the 'wrong' ideas?

Agree. I gave up that kind of naive idealism 30+ years ago, after I read Sydney Schanberg's "The Death and Life of Dith Pran"(the names might be familiar to some)

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

Real life doesn't work that way, and allowing fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists a public platform to speak and spread their filth only enables them to gain power. And people like you, who seem to see all sides as generally equal, are unwitting accomplices.

100%.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

And people like you, who seem to see all sides as generally equal, are unwitting accomplices.

Appeasers. Often 'centrists' who pick the middle position not because they've come to that position honestly like moderates, but through meta considerations to get them to the 'middle'.

[Graham2001]

Censorship by GoogleBot. In this case photographs on a GoogleDrive were designated 'terrorist promotion' resulting in the drive being locked and threatened with deletion.


The first video is one of several 'alerts' posted by members of the YouTube armoured vehicle history community. In the course of this the hypocracy of Google 'fighing discrimination' while flagging pictures of tanks in the middle east as 'terrorist promotion'...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeY_uroI_xI


The second is the 'Thank You' video from the affected person when the situation was resolved in their favour.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLmmNntk94w

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

...snip...

I'm still rather of the opinion that labeling beliefs as inherently evil, and then advocating and applauding the doxxing of those who hold those beliefs so that they can be persecuted is an evil tactic, regardless of how holy you think your cause is.

You contradict yourself.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Graham2001

Censorship by GoogleBot. In this case photographs on a GoogleDrive were designated 'terrorist promotion' resulting in the drive being locked and threatened with deletion.


The first video is one of several 'alerts' posted by members of the YouTube armoured vehicle history community. In the course of this the hypocracy of Google 'fighing discrimination' while flagging pictures of tanks in the middle east as 'terrorist promotion'...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeY_uroI_xI


The second is the 'Thank You' video from the affected person when the situation was resolved in their favour.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLmmNntk94w

And what is the point you want to make?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

Appeasers. Often 'centrists' who pick the middle position not because they've come to that position honestly like moderates, but through meta considerations to get them to the 'middle'.

I have been told that it is only an emotional response that I believe those that want to kill me for no other reason than me being a homosexual i.e. self-identified Nazis are wrong....

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by rdwight

I mean, you can really confidently say she is a racist POS from a 20 second clip and a description from only one side? Seems a lot to infer from a short snapshot of her life. Maybe a bit of an extreme position?

It's the position that her boss took when he fired her. That's kinda my point, someone who has already passed judgement and extracted a punishment is not really in a position to mediate any additional "resolution". I tend to agree with mumblethrax that this boss sees this as an opportunity to insert himself into a situation more so than he really merits.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by rdwight

I mean, you can really confidently say she is a racist POS from a 20 second clip and a description from only one side? Seems a lot to infer from a short snapshot of her life. Maybe a bit of an extreme position?

What's the alternative? Absolutely not-a-racist person makes a racially charged remark, then tries to deny it, and then gets fired for it? Really? Well, you might buy that pile of dog feces, but I don't - not for a moment.

I do not believe that a person who tells a black man walking his dog to "to stay in your 'hood", is not a racist., and especially when they do so right in front of a third-party witness!

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Boudicca90

I used to be naïve and believed that all viewpoints were valid to express in this country and that free speech was absolute. "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." was my general viewpoint. Surely in the marketplace of ideas, the 'right' ideas will win over the 'wrong' ideas?

Real life doesn't work that way, and allowing fascists, Nazis, and white supremacists a public platform to speak and spread their filth only enables them to gain power. And people like you, who seem to see all sides as generally equal, are unwitting accomplices.

I think we are well passed the time where such stances could be attributed to naivety. American fascists have repeatedly showed the public who they are and what they hope to achieve, those that are still carrying water for their movement through pretextual mewling about "free speech" or the "marketplace of ideas" are just cowards, enablers, or collaborators.

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I do not believe that a person who tells a black man walking his dog to "to stay in your 'hood", is not a racist., and especially when they do so right in front of a third-party witness!

You're taking someone's word for it on this part, since she doesn't say it on video.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You're taking someone's word for it on this part, since she doesn't say it on video.

I believe she probably said it, although I certainly wouldn't take Joseph's word for it given his history.

[TurkeysGhost]

Sometimes cancel culture is insufficiently aggressive so you have to cancel yourself.

Quote:

A former FedEx driver who vowed in a profanity-laced video to never deliver packages to houses championing the Black Lives Matter movement, Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris has since been fired — and now won’t be delivering packages to any houses at all.

First reported by TooFab on Friday, the delivery company terminated employee Vincent Paterno, 39, after catching wind of a TikTok video in which Paterno smugly states he will not extend services to any house with a flag representing BLM, the President or VP, using a vulgar term to mock Harris’ first name.

https://news.yahoo.com/fedex-fires-d...205944592.html

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by Elaedith

I believe she probably said it, although I certainly wouldn't take Joseph's word for it given his history.

I've seen social justice advocates make up fake quotes often enough that I don't have much credulity left when there isn't decent corroboration.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

I just wanted to say that trying to shame people for treating actual nazis like “nazis” actually treat everyone else is a pretty hot take.

Well I totally understand why of all people on the internet Nazis would want to remain anonymous. I don’t necessarily condone hacking people in principle and have mixed feelings on doxing. That said, it happened. I don’t think you can really expect everyone else not to react to finding out someone is a real life nazi. Whether Joan found out on her own or someone else told her it’s what happened. It’s a weird principal stance to expect people to carry on their personal relationships because they found out in an “unfair” way, and doubly so to expect that to be the default stance in my opinion.

But by all means, if you want to be that forgiving that you’d willingly associate with Nazis because they wanted to do it secretly I think that’s your choice to make. I think most people, rightfully, would not.

I don't expect people to carry on their personal relationships.

I do expect that nefarious and intentionally harmful actions don't get multiplied by people who do NOT have a personal relationship with their target. I also expect that people who are uninvolved don't laud and support the nefarious actions in the first place.

There's a clear downside to this behavior. Honestly, I'm baffled that it's not obvious to all of you. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore it when it suits your needs.

First off, the definition of what I'll loosely call "heresy" is fluid and highly subjective. Today it's "nazi" and that all seems well and good. But "actual nazis" these aren't. Already, they're not members of the actual nazi party, so there's an immediate fail. So we have to redefine that to "nazi-like" and rely on their beliefs - or at least what we infer their beliefs to be. So far, I can get behind that based on the names of the domains. We infer that this person holds antisemitic beliefs. And perhaps enough of us today view that to be socially unacceptable. But you should know from observation that many, many people aren't so narrow in their definition. Many, many people have expanded their applied definition of nazi to mean nothing more than right-wing, or even simply conservative.

So now, you're giving license to see anyone who is labeled as "right wing" or "conservative" to be doxed, harassed, and fired because of their beliefs. And THAT is not reasonable or appropriate behavior - that is exactly the behavior of fascist authoritarians and religious zealots.

Second, you're relying on a naïve assumptions that the only targets of such action would be what I'll loosely call "enemies". People who are in opposition to your own social values and objectives. You assume that the actors behind such nefarious actions will always hold the same view as you. But that's a sophomoric assumptions, as should be clearly obvious by even a brief skimming of history. There's no reason to think that in another few years, in a decade, in some relatively short period of time, the "orthodox" view will shift, and you'll find yourself the one labeled as the heretical "enemy" subject to doxxing, harassing, and firing on the basis of your beliefs.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

I think we are well passed the time where such stances could be attributed to naivety. American fascists have repeatedly showed the public who they are and what they hope to achieve, those that are still carrying water for their movement through pretextual mewling about "free speech" or the "marketplace of ideas" are just cowards, enablers, or collaborators.

Ahh... I see we've now blown right past the persecution of actual fascists, and are now fully on board with the persecution of people who don't support the persecution of fascists.

It's not longer just nazis at the end of that pitchfork, it's anyone who isn't willing to pick up a pitchfork and attack nazis with you.

This is absolutely authoritarian fascism and zealotry. Torquemada would be proud.

[TurkeysGhost]

Notorious right wing troll and serial stalker is floundering after Epik hack, lashing out at mainstream and independent journalists.

Quote:

Melissa Lewis, a self-described anti-fascist activist and writer in Portland, Ore., said her family spent months feeling “hunted” by far-right troll and convicted hacker Joseph “Joey” Camp, whose name was listed on domain registrations with Epik and who has claimed publicly to have done freelance work for Monster.

Lewis said Camp — whose targets have included not just far-left activists but also conservative favorite Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) — sent her harassing emails, posted her home address and disseminated photos of her online, resulting in Lewis being added to extremist hit lists. She said Camp also went after her father, an emergency room doctor, by posting the human resources number to his hospital and spinning tales about her dad “letting cops and patriots die” in the ER. Lewis said her father, too, began receiving death threats, prompting the hospital to take security precautions.


...

After the call, which Camp recorded and posted online, he boasted of “lying to the Washington Post” and began harassing a Post reporter via text and social media.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/techn...-hack-fallout/

Some of the worst cockroaches on the planet are scrambling after the lights were suddenly thrown on. Sucks to suck.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Ahh... I see we've now blown right past the persecution of actual fascists, and are now fully on board with the persecution of people who don't support the persecution of fascists.

It's not longer just nazis at the end of that pitchfork, it's anyone who isn't willing to pick up a pitchfork and attack nazis with you.

This is absolutely authoritarian fascism and zealotry. Torquemada would be proud.

Ah yes, the fierce persecution of being criticized.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I don't expect people to carry on their personal relationships.

I do expect that nefarious and intentionally harmful actions don't get multiplied by people who do NOT have a personal relationship with their target. I also expect that people who are uninvolved don't laud and support the nefarious actions in the first place.

There's a clear downside to this behavior. Honestly, I'm baffled that it's not obvious to all of you. Or perhaps you just choose to ignore it when it suits your needs.

First off, the definition of what I'll loosely call "heresy" is fluid and highly subjective. Today it's "nazi" and that all seems well and good. But "actual nazis" these aren't. Already, they're not members of the actual nazi party, so there's an immediate fail. So we have to redefine that to "nazi-like" and rely on their beliefs - or at least what we infer their beliefs to be. So far, I can get behind that based on the names of the domains. We infer that this person holds antisemitic beliefs. And perhaps enough of us today view that to be socially unacceptable. But you should know from observation that many, many people aren't so narrow in their definition. Many, many people have expanded their applied definition of nazi to mean nothing more than right-wing, or even simply conservative.

So now, you're giving license to see anyone who is labeled as "right wing" or "conservative" to be doxed, harassed, and fired because of their beliefs. And THAT is not reasonable or appropriate behavior - that is exactly the behavior of fascist authoritarians and religious zealots.

Second, you're relying on a naïve assumptions that the only targets of such action would be what I'll loosely call "enemies". People who are in opposition to your own social values and objectives. You assume that the actors behind such nefarious actions will always hold the same view as you. But that's a sophomoric assumptions, as should be clearly obvious by even a brief skimming of history. There's no reason to think that in another few years, in a decade, in some relatively short period of time, the "orthodox" view will shift, and you'll find yourself the one labeled as the heretical "enemy" subject to doxxing, harassing, and firing on the basis of your beliefs.

But really how can you write a whole paragraph about how unfair I’m using nazi after you wrote this:

Quote:

How on earth do you not understand that these are the tactics of the inquisition and the nazi part?

OK, so tell me more about how people wanting a realtor that doesn’t run Holocaust denial sites are the real fascists and going on Twitter to tell ****** people they are ****** is basically the inquisition.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by d4m10n

You're taking someone's word for it on this part, since she doesn't say it on video.

Did you forget there was a witness?