6 ms·

The theory seems to be that white supremacists just naturally wish to commit violent hate crimes and that white supremacists use 8chan to indoctrinate more foll

The theory seems to be that white supremacists just naturally wish to commit violent hate crimes and that white supremacists use 8chan to indoctrinate more followers. What if it turns out that white supremacists primary wish is to have their arguments heard by society, but society has instead cast them out and refuses to let them post elsewhere so they can only post on 8chan, and that some of them, mentally unstable, react to being outcast in extreme ways? I'm not arguing that they have any good points or that we should give them a platform. I'm certainly not arguing that any of their actions are justified. But if this second view of the situation is more accurate, it suggests a solution to the problem that the first view completely misses. How could we tell the difference? I'm thinking of something more akin to this: https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc.... I have to admit ignorance though, I have not read any manifestos (the Christchurch one is illegal for me to read) I am quite unfamiliar with 8chan (I've heard people talk of 4chan and checked it out once when researching the supposed "white power" OK hand symbol hoax) and do not live in America presently so perhaps this speculation is offbase, and I'm happy to be corrected.

empath75 7y ago
So you basically have no idea what you’re talking about but want to talk about giving a wider platform to nazis?
- mikedilger 7y ago
  I said "I'm not arguing that they have any good points or that we should give them a platform." Also, admitting ignorance doesn't mean I have "no idea". I've read a bit of psychology on this topic, and feelings of being rejected by society are very powerful motivators.
- c1ccccc1 7y ago
  Just for the record here: I think it's a good thing when people are willing to admit they're ignorant about certain things. It shows that they are willing to learn and change their minds based on new information.
moomin 7y ago
Germany tried that in the 1930s. The de-platforming required later was historic.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  I agree! Anyone who talks about “White Privelege” as if they are a uniform group below contempt is just as wrong as Nazis of old railing about “Jewish Conspiracy!” We should not be giving these radical racists a platform! These evil people want to disarm the populace, suppress dissenting speech, and engage in social engineering! We must stop them! See how that works? You want to know how to turn someone? Show love, not hate. Daryl Davis has shown just how well that works.
- iamnothere 7y ago
  Actually Germany had strict hate speech laws and worked hard to prevent the Nazis from rising to power. From this article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v... Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it. So it is not quite as you have claimed.
deogeo 7y ago
> the Christchurch one is illegal for me to read Could you elaborate on this? It sounds awful to me - someone could tell you anything they want about the manifesto and the shooter's motivations, and it would be illegal for you to check if they are lying or not.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago
  I assume he means he is from NZ and the government has made downloading/sharing the shooter's manifesto illegal.[1] [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/new-zealand-bans-christchurch-shooter-manifesto-livestream-2019-3 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/new-zea...
  - mikedilger 7y ago
    yes, this
brown9-2 7y ago
The solution to ideologues who murder is not to listen to them more carefully. No one seriously suggests we need to be more respectful of the beliefs of ISIS.
- davesmith1983 7y ago
  “It's right to learn, even from the enemy.” - Ovid. If you do not learn what motivates an extremist you will not be able to prevent other extremists from committing similar acts.
  - brown9-2 7y ago
    I think we are all well aware of what motivates these killers by now. Giving them more of a platform and audience won’t reduce their murders - it will bring them more followers.
    - davesmith1983 7y ago
      Are we? Because articles such as this seem to blame 8chan and 4chan (they never mention the rest of the site which has stuff from /g which is GNU stuff and the transexual and gay communities on there). Back in the 90s they blamed Doom, Heavy metal and Rap music. In the 1950s and 60s they blamed horror / slasher comics. As for giving them a platform and an audience bringing more followers, firstly this is terminology used for justify soft censorship. Secondly in the UK back in 2010 Nick Griffin (a notorious anti-semite/racist and leader of the BNP) was allowed to speak on Question Time (a very popular show on the BBC). Afterwards we didn't hear from the BNP again because the ideas were exposed for what they were. The BNP party is effectively dead in the UK. Almost every-time one of these racists are actually spoken to the vast majority of the population reject their message. Every-time it is repressed these ideas resurface because these people create their own echo-chambers and makes these ideas sexy as they are considered taboo.
      - spaced-out 7y ago
        >Almost every-time one of these racists are actually spoken to the vast majority of the population reject their message. Deplatforming is the population rejecting their message.
dwild 7y ago
> What if it turns out that white supremacists primary wish is to have their arguments heard by society, but society has instead cast them out and refuses to let them post elsewhere so they can only post on 8chan, and that some of them, mentally unstable, react to being outcast in extreme ways? The thing is, their argument is often not coherent or unfunded and once public, will be shown wrong pretty quickly (sadly not always with the right words or the right ways) and they'll feel attacked because of that. On theses platforms, that doesn't happen, people are cheering them, they feel right, they feel it's the correct way of thinking. Thus they go there instead because it feel good. The best example is r/the_donald banning any opposite way of thinking. They are also slowly self-justifying isolating themselve from others, accusing others of manipulations, of fake news, using conspiration theories to ignore facts, accusing people of "concern trolling", etc... That's sadly quite hard to fix and you'll need quite a b it of motivation and original thinking to be able to go beyond all theses walls they build arround themselves to protect their hatred and their little communities.
- mikedilger 7y ago
  I absolutely agree. I think if they self-select to group with their own kind they radicalize each other. But there is not much we can do about that because no matter how many forums get shut down another one will pop up. The community itself doesn't go away just because a platform goes away, that just aggravates them. The best opportunity we have to help normalize them is while they are on public platforms like twitter, youtube and facebook. Unfortunately those platforms have chosen to ban accounts rather than just censor and throttle content (for reasons that make perfect commercial sense). And good-faith statements of bad ideas are not being engaged with because they get censored as well (obviously bad faith trolling and memes don't invite engagement). IMHO the best response is to engage where engagement is invited (everyone is edified by such discussions), censor where it isn't invited and where it is otherwise necessary to censor, throttle the ability of repeat offenders to post... but never perma-ban accounts. In summary I guess my point is this: We can't stop them from choosing to go into a dark corner, but we can stop pushing them there.

empath75 7y ago

So you basically have no idea what you’re talking about but want to talk about giving a wider platform to nazis?

mikedilger 7y ago
I said "I'm not arguing that they have any good points or that we should give them a platform." Also, admitting ignorance doesn't mean I have "no idea". I've read a bit of psychology on this topic, and feelings of being rejected by society are very powerful motivators.
c1ccccc1 7y ago
Just for the record here: I think it's a good thing when people are willing to admit they're ignorant about certain things. It shows that they are willing to learn and change their minds based on new information.

moomin 7y ago

Germany tried that in the 1930s. The de-platforming required later was historic.

mieseratte 7y ago
I agree! Anyone who talks about “White Privelege” as if they are a uniform group below contempt is just as wrong as Nazis of old railing about “Jewish Conspiracy!” We should not be giving these radical racists a platform! These evil people want to disarm the populace, suppress dissenting speech, and engage in social engineering! We must stop them! See how that works? You want to know how to turn someone? Show love, not hate. Daryl Davis has shown just how well that works.
iamnothere 7y ago
Actually Germany had strict hate speech laws and worked hard to prevent the Nazis from rising to power. From this article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v... Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it. So it is not quite as you have claimed.

deogeo 7y ago

> the Christchurch one is illegal for me to read Could you elaborate on this? It sounds awful to me - someone could tell you anything they want about the manifesto and the shooter's motivations, and it would be illegal for you to check if they are lying or not.

bitxbitxbitcoin 7y ago
I assume he means he is from NZ and the government has made downloading/sharing the shooter's manifesto illegal.[1] [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/new-zealand-bans-christchurch-shooter-manifesto-livestream-2019-3 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/new-zea...
- mikedilger 7y ago
  yes, this

brown9-2 7y ago

The solution to ideologues who murder is not to listen to them more carefully. No one seriously suggests we need to be more respectful of the beliefs of ISIS.

davesmith1983 7y ago
“It's right to learn, even from the enemy.” - Ovid. If you do not learn what motivates an extremist you will not be able to prevent other extremists from committing similar acts.
- brown9-2 7y ago
  I think we are all well aware of what motivates these killers by now. Giving them more of a platform and audience won’t reduce their murders - it will bring them more followers.
  - davesmith1983 7y ago
    Are we? Because articles such as this seem to blame 8chan and 4chan (they never mention the rest of the site which has stuff from /g which is GNU stuff and the transexual and gay communities on there). Back in the 90s they blamed Doom, Heavy metal and Rap music. In the 1950s and 60s they blamed horror / slasher comics. As for giving them a platform and an audience bringing more followers, firstly this is terminology used for justify soft censorship. Secondly in the UK back in 2010 Nick Griffin (a notorious anti-semite/racist and leader of the BNP) was allowed to speak on Question Time (a very popular show on the BBC). Afterwards we didn't hear from the BNP again because the ideas were exposed for what they were. The BNP party is effectively dead in the UK. Almost every-time one of these racists are actually spoken to the vast majority of the population reject their message. Every-time it is repressed these ideas resurface because these people create their own echo-chambers and makes these ideas sexy as they are considered taboo.
    - spaced-out 7y ago
      >Almost every-time one of these racists are actually spoken to the vast majority of the population reject their message. Deplatforming is the population rejecting their message.

dwild 7y ago

> What if it turns out that white supremacists primary wish is to have their arguments heard by society, but society has instead cast them out and refuses to let them post elsewhere so they can only post on 8chan, and that some of them, mentally unstable, react to being outcast in extreme ways? The thing is, their argument is often not coherent or unfunded and once public, will be shown wrong pretty quickly (sadly not always with the right words or the right ways) and they'll feel attacked because of that. On theses platforms, that doesn't happen, people are cheering them, they feel right, they feel it's the correct way of thinking. Thus they go there instead because it feel good. The best example is r/the_donald banning any opposite way of thinking. They are also slowly self-justifying isolating themselve from others, accusing others of manipulations, of fake news, using conspiration theories to ignore facts, accusing people of "concern trolling", etc... That's sadly quite hard to fix and you'll need quite a b it of motivation and original thinking to be able to go beyond all theses walls they build arround themselves to protect their hatred and their little communities.

mikedilger 7y ago
I absolutely agree. I think if they self-select to group with their own kind they radicalize each other. But there is not much we can do about that because no matter how many forums get shut down another one will pop up. The community itself doesn't go away just because a platform goes away, that just aggravates them. The best opportunity we have to help normalize them is while they are on public platforms like twitter, youtube and facebook. Unfortunately those platforms have chosen to ban accounts rather than just censor and throttle content (for reasons that make perfect commercial sense). And good-faith statements of bad ideas are not being engaged with because they get censored as well (obviously bad faith trolling and memes don't invite engagement). IMHO the best response is to engage where engagement is invited (everyone is edified by such discussions), censor where it isn't invited and where it is otherwise necessary to censor, throttle the ability of repeat offenders to post... but never perma-ban accounts. In summary I guess my point is this: We can't stop them from choosing to go into a dark corner, but we can stop pushing them there.