5 ms·

That kind of latency is routine for scrapers and archivers, and of course any time you click on message replies you get the most recent ones at the top. This d

That kind of latency is routine for scrapers and archivers, and of course any time you click on message replies you get the most recent ones at the top. This doesn't seem so weird to me. Are you saying the post was deliberately fabricated to provoke outrage? It's really not that far out of the realm of what really was happening on Parler. That doesn't mean it was a concrete threat, but assuming that Amazon is deliberately inventing threats against its own data centers seems a bit much. I just... I mean I don't understand what's happening to discourse on the right of the US political spectrum right now. Our capitol was just sacked. The Oregon state house was invaded. The governor of Michigan was the target of a kidnapping plot... But everyone wants to pretend that none of these things should inform our priors about the potential for right wing violence?

kodah 6y ago
Right wing and left wing violence and divisive rhetoric is at an all time high and each side wants to act like it's not happening despite clear evidence to the contrary. Generally it gets lost in the "who is worse than who" and some unmentioned desire for a regression to the mean. The problem is that a regression to the mean is either prompted by an event or time.
- durkie 6y ago
  The beautiful thing about this comment is that if anyone questions it or asks for sources you get to say that it confirms your point. Left wing violence is at an all time high? Really?
  - kodah 6y ago
    In recent times, yes. The left and the right have collectively agreed that discourse is dead. That leaves everyone in between scratching their heads. The beautiful thing about your comment is that you assume I have some indefensible, reductionist view of the world. I don't. I've provided examples on this website of that violence and the divisive rhetoric. Here's some highlights from this weekend: https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/kuzeha/recap_of_pacific_beach_protest_on_192021/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/kuzeha/recap_of_p... https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/ku1di1/terrorist_with_large_knife_at_the_pb_protest_gets/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/ku1di1/terrorist_... https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/ku277j/protrump_rally_counterprotest_in_pb_turns_violent/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/ku277j/protrump_r...
    - durkie 6y ago
      Sorry, I'm not trying to assume anything about you. I was responding to the "each side wants to act like it's not happening despite clear evidence to the contrary." as a way of using challenges to your point to confirm your point. I didn't word that well originally. What do you make of this? https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/TNT_Graphics_Web-01.jpg https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/TNT_G... (from https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-u...)
      - ttt0 6y ago
        Wasn't Dayton shooter a left-winger? That was in 2020, so that can't be right. edit: It was 2019, my bad.
        wyldfire 6y ago
        It doesn't seem like there is a lot of evidence that this 2019 shooting was politically motivated. I think the perpetrator had serious mental problems and also strong political feelings. Maybe he just wanted to "outdo" the El Paso shooting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting
        kodah 6y ago
        > I think the perpetrator had serious mental problems This is bias. I can't think of a shooter or murderer who probably doesn't have mental health issues. It does not change whether it's left or right wing violence.
      - kodah 6y ago
        People make mistakes. It looks like it pretty well aligns with my understanding as it can be understood from the data we have today. Two notes: - not all violence is terrorism - the definition of terrorism stays within an upper bound and lower bound of tolerance, but nonetheless is constantly in flux Generally speaking, left wing violence (even in history) is coordinated by loosely connected cells. This makes things quite difficult to track. I always hark back to my days in the military and how hard of a time between 2009 and 2012 they had understanding disjointed cells of terror with respect to the Taliban. They're better understood now, but it took a long time. The only benefit that I had in understanding the organization of these cells was that I was on IRC as a young person and got to watch organizations like Anonymous flourish. I can see left wing violence but I can't point to a specific organization or person leading it. I won't speculate on why left-wing groups do this, but it is of strategic advantage even in history. The bombings of the 1970's are a great example of this, if we choose not to pay attention. [0] This is in contrast to right wing violence that has big names like Gavin McInnes, Richard Spencer, at times Donald Trump or go by names like The Proud Boys, The Alt-Right, the KKK, etc... When you have a name and a domain you're a whole lot easier to track and it's easier to talk about substantively and definitively. The above explains why left-wing violence is just plain missing from this graph. It misses my overall point though. My overall point is that any violent group deters discourse. Any group that deters discourse is a threat to democracy. I would suspect even if we tracked them equally that right-wing violence would outpace left-wing violence. That's a neat comparison for a graph but has very little substance at the end of the day. We are not single task machines and we can certainly focus on shutting down two groups that are a threat to democracy. Any violence which is used to deter discourse deserves to be shut down and it is most effectively shut down by the people who belong to the groups most closely related to it. That's to say, if you're a Republican you can more easily shut down the Alt-Right because you have better access to understanding and tools within the RNC to get rid of them. The same would go for Democrats who could easily shut down left-wing violence and divisive rhetoric, but like Republicans have let it create a home. My last point is rhetoric, which of course is not captured by CSIS. Both of these groups (violence aside) have toxified public and online spaces with hate speech and divisive rhetoric. I cannot count how many left-wing people have entered into these spaces and accused anyone and everyone of some moral crime to the point that people are starting to posit that it sounds like a religion. Having grown up in a repressive religion, I have very little to argue against this point with. On the other hand, right wing groups have saturated online spaces with hate that has driven down diversity in communities and has created this constitution looking rule systems. They both use similar methods: brigading, harassment, stalking, doxxing, etc... I suspect all of the above are interconnected. All of them are worth stopping. It just takes people who don't mind saying, "enough is enough". [0] https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/ https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/
- apercu 6y ago
  Both sides, huh? lol
  - jojobas 6y ago
    BLM riots didn't just loiter in government buildings, they burned them down. How many BLM leaders were banned from Twitter from inciting that with unambiguous "burn America to the ground" kind of stuff?
ttt0 6y ago
I'm not saying anything, but people sometimes do this kind of stuff. This isn't by any means a novel tactic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
diryawish 6y ago
The right sees post-BLM riots which have led to numerous deaths and millions in damage and Antifa running amok in the Pacific Northwest and think the same thing. We are too divided and it’s because of the media, both social and mainstream.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  You mean, it's always someone else's fault?
  - tanseydavid 6y ago
    I think the poster meant that the Polarization is so acute at this point that the Polarization itself needs to be treated as distinct phenomenon (and remedied to some degree) before any progress can be made. An analogy might be the phenomenon of Complexity in software.
    - 52-6F-62 6y ago
      That's not what it sounded like to me. It sounded like they were putting the blame for hazardous actions of others on the media (of an all-encompassing scope) for discussing the hazardous actions being committed. Which to me seems like slinging jargon rather than registering any kind of context. To me, it sounds like a misreading of McLuhan more than anything. In fact, McLuhan's point was exactly that kind of misunderstanding and misreading should be avoided by not taking the context for granted.
- newacct583 6y ago
  But the presence of BLM-related riots simply isn't relevant to the stuff under discussion, where an upthread poster made a sideways argument that evidence for right wing violence was presumptivly suspect in the fact of multiple examples of exactly that kind of thing. The police station in Minneapolis that was burned down (to pick what most people would accept as the worst example of BLM-related violence) just shouldn't be part of a discussion about whether or not there was a threat against Amazon's data centers from the right. This is pure whataboutism, basically. Even if you're right (for the record, I think you're right), you're applying it to deflect an argument against "your" side. Isn't that making the problem you are explaining WORSE and not better? Surely you'd agree that step one to being less divided is to stop reflexively defending "our" side when bad things happen, right?

kodah 6y ago

Right wing and left wing violence and divisive rhetoric is at an all time high and each side wants to act like it's not happening despite clear evidence to the contrary. Generally it gets lost in the "who is worse than who" and some unmentioned desire for a regression to the mean. The problem is that a regression to the mean is either prompted by an event or time.

durkie 6y ago
The beautiful thing about this comment is that if anyone questions it or asks for sources you get to say that it confirms your point. Left wing violence is at an all time high? Really?
- kodah 6y ago
  In recent times, yes. The left and the right have collectively agreed that discourse is dead. That leaves everyone in between scratching their heads. The beautiful thing about your comment is that you assume I have some indefensible, reductionist view of the world. I don't. I've provided examples on this website of that violence and the divisive rhetoric. Here's some highlights from this weekend: https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/kuzeha/recap_of_pacific_beach_protest_on_192021/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/kuzeha/recap_of_p... https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/ku1di1/terrorist_with_large_knife_at_the_pb_protest_gets/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/ku1di1/terrorist_... https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/ku277j/protrump_rally_counterprotest_in_pb_turns_violent/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share https://www.reddit.com/r/sandiego/comments/ku277j/protrump_r...
  - durkie 6y ago
    Sorry, I'm not trying to assume anything about you. I was responding to the "each side wants to act like it's not happening despite clear evidence to the contrary." as a way of using challenges to your point to confirm your point. I didn't word that well originally. What do you make of this? https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/TNT_Graphics_Web-01.jpg https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/TNT_G... (from https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-united-states https://www.csis.org/analysis/escalating-terrorism-problem-u...)
    - ttt0 6y ago
      Wasn't Dayton shooter a left-winger? That was in 2020, so that can't be right. edit: It was 2019, my bad.
      - wyldfire 6y ago
        It doesn't seem like there is a lot of evidence that this 2019 shooting was politically motivated. I think the perpetrator had serious mental problems and also strong political feelings. Maybe he just wanted to "outdo" the El Paso shooting. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Dayton_shooting
        kodah 6y ago
        > I think the perpetrator had serious mental problems This is bias. I can't think of a shooter or murderer who probably doesn't have mental health issues. It does not change whether it's left or right wing violence.
    - kodah 6y ago
      People make mistakes. It looks like it pretty well aligns with my understanding as it can be understood from the data we have today. Two notes: - not all violence is terrorism - the definition of terrorism stays within an upper bound and lower bound of tolerance, but nonetheless is constantly in flux Generally speaking, left wing violence (even in history) is coordinated by loosely connected cells. This makes things quite difficult to track. I always hark back to my days in the military and how hard of a time between 2009 and 2012 they had understanding disjointed cells of terror with respect to the Taliban. They're better understood now, but it took a long time. The only benefit that I had in understanding the organization of these cells was that I was on IRC as a young person and got to watch organizations like Anonymous flourish. I can see left wing violence but I can't point to a specific organization or person leading it. I won't speculate on why left-wing groups do this, but it is of strategic advantage even in history. The bombings of the 1970's are a great example of this, if we choose not to pay attention. [0] This is in contrast to right wing violence that has big names like Gavin McInnes, Richard Spencer, at times Donald Trump or go by names like The Proud Boys, The Alt-Right, the KKK, etc... When you have a name and a domain you're a whole lot easier to track and it's easier to talk about substantively and definitively. The above explains why left-wing violence is just plain missing from this graph. It misses my overall point though. My overall point is that any violent group deters discourse. Any group that deters discourse is a threat to democracy. I would suspect even if we tracked them equally that right-wing violence would outpace left-wing violence. That's a neat comparison for a graph but has very little substance at the end of the day. We are not single task machines and we can certainly focus on shutting down two groups that are a threat to democracy. Any violence which is used to deter discourse deserves to be shut down and it is most effectively shut down by the people who belong to the groups most closely related to it. That's to say, if you're a Republican you can more easily shut down the Alt-Right because you have better access to understanding and tools within the RNC to get rid of them. The same would go for Democrats who could easily shut down left-wing violence and divisive rhetoric, but like Republicans have let it create a home. My last point is rhetoric, which of course is not captured by CSIS. Both of these groups (violence aside) have toxified public and online spaces with hate speech and divisive rhetoric. I cannot count how many left-wing people have entered into these spaces and accused anyone and everyone of some moral crime to the point that people are starting to posit that it sounds like a religion. Having grown up in a repressive religion, I have very little to argue against this point with. On the other hand, right wing groups have saturated online spaces with hate that has driven down diversity in communities and has created this constitution looking rule systems. They both use similar methods: brigading, harassment, stalking, doxxing, etc... I suspect all of the above are interconnected. All of them are worth stopping. It just takes people who don't mind saying, "enough is enough". [0] https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/ https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/
apercu 6y ago
Both sides, huh? lol
- jojobas 6y ago
  BLM riots didn't just loiter in government buildings, they burned them down. How many BLM leaders were banned from Twitter from inciting that with unambiguous "burn America to the ground" kind of stuff?

ttt0 6y ago

I'm not saying anything, but people sometimes do this kind of stuff. This isn't by any means a novel tactic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

diryawish 6y ago

The right sees post-BLM riots which have led to numerous deaths and millions in damage and Antifa running amok in the Pacific Northwest and think the same thing. We are too divided and it’s because of the media, both social and mainstream.

52-6F-62 6y ago
You mean, it's always someone else's fault?
- tanseydavid 6y ago
  I think the poster meant that the Polarization is so acute at this point that the Polarization itself needs to be treated as distinct phenomenon (and remedied to some degree) before any progress can be made. An analogy might be the phenomenon of Complexity in software.
  - 52-6F-62 6y ago
    That's not what it sounded like to me. It sounded like they were putting the blame for hazardous actions of others on the media (of an all-encompassing scope) for discussing the hazardous actions being committed. Which to me seems like slinging jargon rather than registering any kind of context. To me, it sounds like a misreading of McLuhan more than anything. In fact, McLuhan's point was exactly that kind of misunderstanding and misreading should be avoided by not taking the context for granted.
newacct583 6y ago
But the presence of BLM-related riots simply isn't relevant to the stuff under discussion, where an upthread poster made a sideways argument that evidence for right wing violence was presumptivly suspect in the fact of multiple examples of exactly that kind of thing. The police station in Minneapolis that was burned down (to pick what most people would accept as the worst example of BLM-related violence) just shouldn't be part of a discussion about whether or not there was a threat against Amazon's data centers from the right. This is pure whataboutism, basically. Even if you're right (for the record, I think you're right), you're applying it to deflect an argument against "your" side. Isn't that making the problem you are explaining WORSE and not better? Surely you'd agree that step one to being less divided is to stop reflexively defending "our" side when bad things happen, right?