Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwrqX | Hacker News Reader

Some users of KiwiFarms may have the agenda of wanting to drive people to commit suicide, you seem to be accusing the website as a whole of a) having an agenda and b) that agenda being to drive people to kill themselves

What evidence is there for this? I haven't kept up with the website recently, is Null telling people to harass people to death?

View on HN

Official statement from KF on Aug 26th:

> What I fear more than losing my site, being sued, or dealing with police is living in a world where fat eunuchs can groom little boys into castrating themselves and nobody is allowed to say anything about it.

Wow very neutral site with no agenda here

Keffals brags about sending hrt to minors without their parent's knowledge.

Do you think that supports the claims made above?

yes, ofcourse

Not anything I haven't read on Twitter about priests. Seriously, that's what everyone is upset about?

He’s talking about transgender people, not priests

And that just makes all the difference, don't it.

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

That's my point, Twitter has the same content about priests. What's the big deal, no one is in a tizzy about Twitter hosting that content.

Perhaps the context where priests are part of an international organization that has paid off and silenced victims and covered for the priests for decades while the concern about transgender folks being groomers is all bullshit?

There's a big difference between talking shit about people and telling others to harass people until they get to the stage they commit suicide. You've shown me that he talks shit about people, you haven't shown me him having an agenda of trying to get these people he's talking about to kill themselves, which was one of my original claims.

The website does have an agenda of not being shut down, yes, this is why it is so intent on following US laws and cooperates with US authorities. The person trying to shut it down was being described in the terms above, so its not surprising this is the characterization being used. The website defends free expression under US law, i suppose that also is an agenda.

They do have an agenda for sure. That wasn't the question, tho. The question was whether they condone or even encourage their users to target people with the goal of driving those people into suicide?

This might be well the case. I am not one of their users nor am I educated in this matter, so I'd like to know too. When somebody makes this claim, as has been made multiple times in the threads here, with demands to therefore remove kikifarms from the internet, I think it is reasonable to ask for at least some evidence of such a claim.

Josh Moon (founder) gloating on stream about getting Chloe Segal to kill herself after KF harassed her for 5 years

https://twitter.com/keffals/status/1564490554754433025

I don't see him gloating about getting Chloe Segal to kill herself in that tweet or video. What I see is him making fun of her death? Reminds me of a video I saw of a photo of Donald Rumsfeld being burnt when he died last year. What am I missing?

He founded and operates the site and he reacted to her death by calling himself a god. In what way is that not gloating?

If the person burning the Rumsfeld photo contributed to his death then I might say they were gloating too.

Where is he calling himself a God?

Did you not watch the video in the tweet?

Yes? He says he'll play something tasteful as an out-trail then some video plays until the end.

For context, because I didn't know and I'd think others might not either: Apparently Chloe Segal killed herself by going to a public park and lighting herself on fire, telling witnesses in a spoken suicide note her reasons were homelessness and mental health issues.

Josh Moon then playing "Fire" ("I am the God of hellfire and I bring you fire") is in extremely bad taste and outright vile. I can very well see this as gloating.

And yet, it does not prove kiwifarms direct involvement. It's a short extract from a stream he did. Playing devil's advocate for a second, it for example might very well have been a response to media at the time already claiming he/kiwifarms was to blame for the suicide and therefore a rather misguided attempt to poke fun at what he might have considered unfair reporting.

Would you accept posts which say people should kill themselves which have not been removed (and their posters not banned)?

I could easily find hundreds of such posts, but I don't want to waste my time if you wouldn't consider them.

Are you suggesting that not removing those posts is tacit agreement with their content rather than a principled stance on free speech for it's members? It could be both of course, but I always err on the side of charity even if you don't think they deserve it.

It is support -- kiwifarms isn't a free-for-all, they have their list of "lolcows" (people who have a thread dedicated to them), and only moderators can add new threads.

So only moderators can add new threads, and I assume users can post in threads, and I assume the users are the ones posting that the people should kill themselves. So how does this translate into the moderators or site operators/owners endorsing the content of user posts?

Edit: to be clear, "allowing content" does not entail "endorsing content" per my original reply.

I don't see anything about wanting to drive people to suicide.

> is Null telling people to harass people to death?

I'll treat you as though you're honest, but I might point out this is a dishonest person's favorite argument.

Here's the common answer in Twitter thread form: https://twitter.com/IamRageSparkle/status/128089253502461952...

An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of which people believe in it or use it.

As for the Twitter thread I've heard plenty of similar arguments before but I'm not a particularly big believer in them. Lots of people have very awful company (take for example Hollywood actors associating with predators) but that doesn't particularly mean that they are promoting or in agreement with the actions of their company.

> * An argument should be able to stand on its own regardless of which people believe in it or use it.*

Which is why I continued on with addressing the argument.

> Lots of people have very awful company (take for example Hollywood actors associating with predators)

False equivalency I'd say. Yes, the entertainment industry as a whole SUCKS. But if you think about it for even a second, you'll realize there is a difference between being an actor and being an open Nazi.

You didn't give me an argument you gave me a twitter thread. The argument I interpreted from the thread was if you let your bar be associated with a Nazi (because you served them) then down the road they will invite their other Nazi friends and eventually your bar will become a Nazi bar. In the context of this HN thread I take this argument to mean, well Null is associating with people who harassed this woman to death, therefore Null supports it. Which is why I gave the response I did.

Close, but you're missing the point. It becomes a Nazi bar, regardless of the owner's intentions for the bar. So arguing the semantics of one admin's beliefs is irrelevant.

What defines it being a Nazi bar? One patron? A dozen? A certain percentage of the patronage?

Also irrelevant. The Nazi bar is a metaphor.

A metaphor that can't be examined for implications has no value.

Metaphor for what? Supporting harassment to the point of suicide? There's lots of harassment on almost every social media site so the question of what defines it 'going over the edge' so to speak is a very important one to me.

That bartender's name? Albert Einstein.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com