Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", etc. free speech is one facet. But I'm focusing on actions rather than speech here.
Just because someone is a racist, sexist, * ist piece of shit doesn't give someone else the right to shoot them in cold blood... does it? And if not, then how far back does that walk before our response is back at "reasonable American citizens striving to live in a harmonious culture that allows for diversity"?
I feel like my spidey sense is going off when I listen to interviews and get the sense that the person speaking would tell blatant lies without missing a beat to win the argument, because they believe their cause is that just. And I've been getting that prickling a lot when I hear both sides speak about their positions. Which terrifies the hell out of me.
Any thoughts / personal moral positions or frameworks welcome. I'm honestly looking for a way to find a shred of solid footing here that makes me feel more morally comfortable than "white supremacy is bad, therefore anything done against white supremacists is good."
Talk to people like they're a person. Stop making generalizations, yelling in people's faces, hell stop fucking posting on the internet. Pick up a phone, write a letter, go meet face to face and do some good old fashioned talking. This applies to both sides.
Yes, supremacists have always been marching, shouting "free speech" and doing their thing. Ignore them, talk to the other conservatives and liberals like they're people, have a rational discussion about very real grey areas, and don't take their positions to extremes. If you have to, ask them where the line is.
Posting shit on Facebook has been the medium by which tiny towns with their single thought leader (typically a pastor) have been thrust into huge cultural and political discussions and have had their views (via the local leader's) shifted because there's too much crap and shit out there. Both sides have bought into the "internet of faces" of the 2010s and don't remember the "internet of never-post-your-real-name" of the 90s and so take anything with a face as a source of truth.
Finally, the invention of unlimited information on the internet means unlimited opportunity to confirm your own biases, so both sides are falling into this trap as well.
Ultimately, it is a problem of unknowingly self-filtering that can be solved by sitting down with a human being and establishing a real connection.
Trying to silence words that some may find offensive is a slippery slope, because no matter who you are or what you say, there is always someone that will be offended by it. Attempting to win hearts and minds through civil discourse, and accepting the reality that some people will always be unreachable, is IMHO the only way to move forward without irreparably dividing our society, because "A house divided against itself cannot stand".
Hate only breeds hate, and there will always be naturally evil people. Ignore the haters' speech, and keep preaching love an respect. Those that can come around will, and those that can't won't have a voice unless we give it to them.
Imho, this is a good thing.
Some ideas are too virulent to be fought fairly and will dominate without work in the shadows to resist them. Aka "if you eschew a strictly dominating strategy for moral reasons, and your opponent doesn't, they will win."
So I think there's certainly a back and forth. Neo-Nazi's (or Democrats, or Republicans) shouldn't be allowed to visit public grade schools and indoctrinate children, but they do deserve free speech.
1. If you're advocating for the systematic oppression of others based on characteristics they were born with (vs. actions they've taken), then I support efforts to remove your veil of anonymity that allows the rest of the world to engage with personally you based on your known behavior. I do not want to do business with, hire, or otherwise support someone who would deny the same to others for reasons steeped in racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, etc.
2. If you're advocating for violence against others, then I support efforts to remove your veil of anonymity. We should not tolerate physical acts and threats, even levied at those we find repugnant.
3. I strongly believe corporations should be able to make decisions that reflect their corporate values, provided those values are transparently and clearly articulated and don't single groups out based on characteristics they have no control over. Disallowing sites that promote the oppression of others can apply to anyone who has full control over the views they put out into the world. Alternatively, refusing to cover birth control in health plans can apply only to women who had no control over their sex, and are the ones that carry the burden of gestation. This is an unrefined view that requires more consideration on my part, and I am indeed cognizant of a potential slipper slope (fallacy or no).
All of the above is complicated by the fact that the Internet has a long - possibly unending - memory while people possess a capacity to change. I have no doubt many of the younger marchers this past weekend will come to regret their presence there. I don't know what to do about this.
This is half-baked thinking at the moment. It probably doesn't help. To respond to the other commenter: I do not support torture, even if I had a reasonable suspicion that the result would leave to many lives saved. I'd rather 100,000 people die in a world without torture than 50,000 people die in a world with it.
The one thorn I have is defining "violence" in the modern age. Specifically in situations of disparite anonymity.
More and more, I'm tempted to classify "dox'd by anonymous strangers on the internet" as violence against an individual. Something like "gross violation of reasonable expectation of normalcy."
Hypothetically, I attend a white supremacy rally. I'm photographed there. Two different situations occur after.
Situation 1) A neighbor recognizes me on the local news. I receive shunning in my community based on those who disagree with my beliefs.
Situation 2) The internet posts a picture of me (let's say through random chance vs others) and decides that I'm the face of racism. Campaigns are organized to disrupt my life as much as possible.
Even though non-physical... there's sometime disproportionate about 1,000 strangers working to ruin one person's life. Especially as more and more of our lives are trivially influenced via automated and invisible information systems.
Hypothetically-speaking, of course. And obviously the risk of false positives is troublesome.
It certainly seems more just when looked at that way vs random meme person the internet fixates on.
It's the "more moral nuance" criteria that terrifies me though. Because that's ultimately a proxy for "I feel good / bad about this group".
If rules as usual are suspended for dealing with a group, I'm not going to rest it on "Yeah, but they're bad... right?"
Advocating systematic oppression is a concrete reason. But what degree rises to forfeiting normal rights? Does the local judge who's pretty racist qualify?
Also, if you're going, "Yeah, but they're bad... right?" That implies that maybe there is nuance. I would argue that nuance is not present with Nazis.
Nazis presumably don't wake up, get out of bed, and say "I'm going to be evil today." They have a set of racist beliefs and they pursue them.
But lots of other people have racist beliefs too. Local judges, in all probability our current Attorney General, inner city police, etc. So what makes Nazis different from them?
HelloMcFly's "actively and publicly working towards the oppression of others" seems like a decent standard.
I'd just prefer to have some framework that doesn't justify itself with "Nazis are bad because they're Nazis" (which is what my phrasing above was getting at). Essentially, the trotting out child pornographers (who nobody wants to defend) to try and enact free speech restriction (which people would otherwise want to defend).
Read about WWII. Read about what these people actually believe. Generally, people aren't willing to give nuance to a group that actively calls for genocide.
"Nazis presumably don't wake up, get out of bed, and say "I'm going to be evil today." They have a set of racist beliefs and they pursue them."
Yes, they do. Because their set of beliefs is inherently evil and violent.
"But lots of other people have racist beliefs too. Local judges, in all probability our current Attorney General, inner city police, etc. So what makes Nazis different from them?"
I don't know, and I honestly don't care.
"I'd just prefer to have some framework that doesn't justify itself with "Nazis are bad because they're Nazis" (which is what my phrasing above was getting at). Essentially, the trotting out child pornographers (who nobody wants to defend) to try and enact free speech restriction (which people would otherwise want to defend)."
I mean, you do you. But again, Nazis are bad because they are Nazis. There is no such thing as a good Nazi. They are working to do harm to others.
And yeowch. Is it not apparent that your line of reasoning just as easily leads to "Jews are evil" if that happens to be the prevailing sentiment / news / way you were raised?
Don't look for it. There is no moral way to justify it.
Look: The alt-right is evil in ideology, and it's evil in methodology. (Ideology: If you can't buy "all men are created equal", you're un-American. You're also dehumanizing those different than you, which is immoral under almost any reasonable theory of morality. Methodology: Threatening violence against those you disagree with, and being eager to do more than threaten, is for those who are pretty sure that their position can't persuade others.)
Antifa sees this, says "that's wrong and must be opposed" (which is valid), and then adopts almost the exact same methodology. (Trying to deny those they disagree with the opportunity to speak via physical force, rather than clearly and convincingly pointing out for all to see that their position is evil.) The intent may be better, but the methodology is just as evil. "We're going to beat up the people who need beating up, and it will be good when we do it, because we're right about who needs beating up."
No, the methodology condemns antifa. Don't try to find a way to rationalize it. It's wrong. The alt-right needs to be opposed, but don't become like them in opposing them.
-George Costanza
And even if it was a lie, lying is generally not illegal.
The courts generally uphold the right of these groups to express their ideologies. I think correctly.
My opinion is that the best way to deal with this stuff is not outrage. I think people who disagree should politely contradict these sorts of opinions when they're broached and otherwise ignore/disengage from this nonsense.
I don't think overtly or covertly trying to suppress this kind speech is good. Legally speaking these people have a right to express themselves and, pragmatically, I don't think trying to suppress their speech or loudly condemning it actually helps anything.
There was a huge backlash to CA prop-8 a few years ago, and an effort was made to 'out' its supporters. One of the key reasons old CEO Brendan Eich of Mozilla was fired. [0]
In WI a few years ago, there was a recall attempt against the governor, and there was a large effort to identify all the petition signers, and people lost jobs, had appointments to govt panels rescinded, etc. [1]
As much as I can't stand it, and I think it ruins their message (and makes them look like thugs) I'm starting to understand why people at rallies for antifa wear something covering their faces..
[0] http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/06/does-mozilla-dumping-its-c... [1] http://iverifytherecall.com/
I've recently seen Republican presidential hopefuls talking about nuking an entire region to deal with terrorists, killing their families, torturing them, even if not effective, because they deserve it etc.
I've not heard anything worse than "it's okay to punch Nazis" or "the death penalty should apply for this murder" about these particular terrorists. (Neither of which I particularly agree with, but let's keep some sense of scale here).
The discourse seems to be drifting more towards "Well, we all know what they are like, so we have to do whatever it takes to oppose them" on both sides day by day.
On the one hand, I wholeheartedly support free speech. I believe that any view should be able to expressed without fear of persecution, bodily harm, or death. Even those that constitute as "hate speech". I believe, at a fundamental level, that expressing views and putting them out will do less harm than keeping them repressed due to fear until they boil over into action.
However - I also believe in consequences. If you choose to be an alt-right/neo-nazi/*ist you must also suffer the consequences imposed by other people you are surrounded by.
I felt a sense of happiness and justice when Richard Spencer got punched. But I also felt like the attacker should have suffered consequences instead of being hailed as a hero. I was also disturbed by the general "he deserved it, and probably more" sentiment that was going around.
There are definitely very real bad guys out there, but recent events tell us in no uncertain terms that the moment the standard of proof is lowered, it will be abused.
Of these, I think (2) is the more common argument, but also the weaker. It's pretty abstract to justify concrete actions.
The former does jive with my internal morality though. It feels like it at least starts an answer to "Why are outside-the-norm means justified now, but not at other times?"
"Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them?"
For me, while I don't participate in doxxing and such, I can't be upset at what's happening to these people. For one, they've been doing it themselves for years. All the way back to the days when many of them were in GamerGate. So I can't really be upset that they're getting a taste of their own medicine.
"Just because someone is a racist, sexist, * ist piece of shit doesn't give someone else the right to shoot them in cold blood... does it?"
No. But no one is advocating for that.
"And if not, then how far back does that walk before our response is back at "reasonable American citizens striving to live in a harmonious culture that allows for diversity"?"
This is what you have to decide as a human. You make decisions like this every day. You go to a restaurant and find a hair that's not yours in your food. What do you do? It's the same kind of thing. But with Nazis.
They are at least, like a bug that crawled onto your burger. Maybe not all the way to cockroach but, unquestionably at least a scary spider.
The tone of discourse is a credit to the site and all of you.
TL;DR: enemies are people too.
These people go out in the street and burn crosses in front of families' homes. They absolutely should be doxxed.
I don't know what the OP is saying. Nobody's going out killing white supremacists either...
Breaking the law for moral reasons still lessens its protections when you find yourself on the other side of someone oppressing you.
Such was Gandi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr's realization.
That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system.
Laws aren't just things that codify current practice, they can also be progressive in and of themselves.
All of them involved someone breaking the law on the books, and either being held accountable (e.g., Duke Power)—which I'm not sure is actual progress, though the passage of the law, which, in these examples, was usually a result of civil disobedience, might be—or having the law invalidated after the fact (e.g., Roe).
So I'm not sure how that supports progress without lawbreaking.
A) Breaking the law and then appealing to the judicial or legislative or executive for redress
B) Repeatedly breaking the law in pursuit of justice because it's inconvenient
The latter furthers dissolving the rule of law. The former supports it in an odd sort of way.
My point being that one of the great features of our government is that there are methods of changing things that do not involve breaking the law.
One of the most effective efforts for Civil Rights as a whole in the 1960s was increasing minority turnout to the ballots, as suddenly their interests had to be taken into account by those wishing to be elected.
It's not "outing" once you've already been doing it in public.
turn on = become hostile towards
"But you are, perhaps, ready to ask, "What has this to do with the perpetuation of our political institutions?" I answer, it has much to do with it. Its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, but a small evil; and much of its danger consists, in the proneness of our minds, to regard its direct, as its only consequences. Abstractly considered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg, was of but little consequence. They constitute a portion of population, that is worse than useless in any community; and their death, if no pernicious example be set by it, is never matter of reasonable regret with any one. If they were annually swept, from the stage of existence, by the plague or small pox, honest men would, perhaps, be much profited, by the operation.--Similar too, is the correct reasoning, in regard to the burning of the negro at St. Louis. He had forfeited his life, by the perpetration of an outrageous murder, upon one of the most worthy and respectable citizens of the city; and had not he died as he did, he must have died by the sentence of the law, in a very short time afterwards. As to him alone, it was as well the way it was, as it could otherwise have been.--But the example in either case, was fearful.--When men take it in their heads to day, to hang gamblers, or burn murderers, they should recollect, that, in the confusion usually attending such transactions, they will be as likely to hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as one who is; and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrow, may, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very same mistake. And not only so; the innocent, those who have ever set their faces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guilty, fall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons and property of individuals, are trodden down, and disregarded. But all this even, is not the full extent of the evil.--By such examples, by instances of the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spirit, are encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used to no restraint, but dread of punishment, they thus become, absolutely unrestrained.--Having ever regarded Government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations; and pray for nothing so much, as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquility, who desire to abide by the laws, and enjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defense of their country; seeing their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and seeing nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better; become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection; and are not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocractic spirit, which all must admit, is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark of any Government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, may effectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of the People. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever the vicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this Government cannot last. By such things, the feelings of the best citizens will become more or less alienated from it; and thus it will be left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak, to make their friendship effectual. At such a time and under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wanting to seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabric, which for the last half century, has been the fondest hope, of the lovers of freedom, throughout the world."
Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum address
The next quote is from A Man for all seasons.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
If we have learned anything from Trump's election, it is that people who we may think unlikely to come to power, can come to power. If we tear up our principles of free speech and rule of law to after the Nazis, what will we hide behind when would be authoritarians come to power? The principle of free speech is what allows people to protest Trump and for newspapers to criticize him. The rule of law makes the police protect even those protestors they disagree with from violence. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.
How is the era of Athens over, because a brown person is allowed to attend my University and learn about Plato and Socrates while sitting next to me?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miriam-rosenbaum/womens-only-s...
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/muslim-footbaths-threaten...
http://www.newsweek.com/white-nationalists-are-right-america...