4 ms·

It would be much easier to take this argument seriously if the most recent example of "deplatforming" (and the prime example in the very article we are discussi

It would be much easier to take this argument seriously if the most recent example of "deplatforming" (and the prime example in the very article we are discussing in this thread) wasn't a bunch of well funded publications coming to the defense of hedge funds and calling meme culture aware day traders evil Nazis. Seeing as of late the only prominent examples of the terrible behavior you describe are by exactly the people trying to warn the world of these evil people and save us from them, I'm going to have to file this in "baseless scaremongering." This is the moral panic of our day. This is our satanic panic, and the people you're defending are our Tipper Gore.

Spivak 6y ago
You know these things are allowed to be something other than all or nothing, right? You can hold the stance that WSB fiasco is idiotic scaremongering while also acknowledging that there are other internet mobs that do real harm. Because when it comes to WSB I completely agree with you.
- betwixthewires 6y ago
  My point, well I have more than one really, they are 1) if these evil mobs are really any semblance of a threat, pointing at them every time a blue check decides to go after ideological opponents desensitizes us to it, and 2) the only prominent examples of what you're saying exists and is a danger are perpetrated by the people reminding us of this ever present danger. You can't defend baseless attacks against things like WSB by reminding us that a real mob of scumbags exist and then expect others to disassociate the two. When an article is written attacking someone that is legitimately going after the evil people on the internet, your point may very well be valid, but in this case it is not. If you want these two scenarios disassociated from one another, perhaps don't associate them with one another.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    No that's fine, I think we're actually in agreement. I want also want the two disassociated! It just seems like whenever deplatforming comes up like this people's gut reaction is to say that its bad in absolute terms and that getting rid of the very worst who do real harm is the same as silencing political views you don't like. I absolutely do not want to give off the impression that I approve of the WSB scaremongering. They're a vulgar bunch but it's all in good fun and self deprecation.
    - DenisM 6y ago
      Lynch mob is wrong, even if it hangs the right man on occasion.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  > You can hold the stance that WSB fiasco is idiotic scaremongering while also acknowledging that there are other internet mobs that do real harm. You mean like that group that has torched neighborhoods, shot polive officers, shot other protesters, thrown rocks, use baseball bats on police and civilians etc etc? Or do you mean the really really scary ones like the ones that walked into Capitol Hill and had four lunatics with strips along with them while the rest were busily taking photos?
  - seizethegdgap 6y ago
    That's the most hilariously disingenuous take on what happened at the Capitol that I've read so far, so points for that. Nearly 95% of all protests this summer were non-violent, and 80% of all protests were linked to BLM: https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/ https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi... Point out to me a single BLM protest where both: • 6 people died • BLM stormed a capitol building while the legislative body was in session
    - betwixthewires 6y ago
      So I don't have skin in the game here, and I'm definitely no fan of the comment you responded to (not appropriate for this forum and not conducive to real discussion) but I figured I'd point out 1 person was killed at the capitol and she was shot by DC police, another cop was thought to have been killed with a fire extinguisher but that is currently being investigated, and the rest died of heart attacks and things like that. To claim "6 people died" is at least as disingenuous as what you're accusing.
      - seizethegdgap 6y ago
        Maybe it was a little disingenuous. Of the 5 (my apologies) that died, 1 was a stroke, 1 was a heart attack, 1 was crushed by the mob, and we know what happened to the other 2. I could be wrong, but I still don't think there was a single BLM protest this summer where 3 people were killed.
perl4ever 6y ago
WSB wasn't all that alt-right/Nazi/whatever before the GameStop insanity, but after some clickbait articles equating them with Trump supporters, something like 6 million new people descended on them, some noticeable number of them being Trump/QAnon cultists. I suspect it was a self-fulfilling thing.
- orestarod 6y ago
  No Trumpists were spotted - people just wanted a piece of the pie and say fuck you to the criminals at Wall Street - but it seems the media did their job.
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    Oh, no. They were spotted. Afterwards. I am not talking about hearsay or "journalism". There was a thread with several tens of thousands of upvotes and someone innocently said to the effect of "that sounds almost like one of those worshippers of the orange god..." and another person said (paraphrasing) "it literally IS, they are an antivaxxer and EVERYTHING, just check their posting history". They were not lying. That doesn't prove any particular percentage of the newcomers were, but when you see one like that... But I say again, I believe this was an effect of the articles, not the cause.

Spivak 6y ago

You know these things are allowed to be something other than all or nothing, right? You can hold the stance that WSB fiasco is idiotic scaremongering while also acknowledging that there are other internet mobs that do real harm. Because when it comes to WSB I completely agree with you.

betwixthewires 6y ago
My point, well I have more than one really, they are 1) if these evil mobs are really any semblance of a threat, pointing at them every time a blue check decides to go after ideological opponents desensitizes us to it, and 2) the only prominent examples of what you're saying exists and is a danger are perpetrated by the people reminding us of this ever present danger. You can't defend baseless attacks against things like WSB by reminding us that a real mob of scumbags exist and then expect others to disassociate the two. When an article is written attacking someone that is legitimately going after the evil people on the internet, your point may very well be valid, but in this case it is not. If you want these two scenarios disassociated from one another, perhaps don't associate them with one another.
- Spivak 6y ago
  No that's fine, I think we're actually in agreement. I want also want the two disassociated! It just seems like whenever deplatforming comes up like this people's gut reaction is to say that its bad in absolute terms and that getting rid of the very worst who do real harm is the same as silencing political views you don't like. I absolutely do not want to give off the impression that I approve of the WSB scaremongering. They're a vulgar bunch but it's all in good fun and self deprecation.
  - DenisM 6y ago
    Lynch mob is wrong, even if it hangs the right man on occasion.
skinkestek 6y ago
> You can hold the stance that WSB fiasco is idiotic scaremongering while also acknowledging that there are other internet mobs that do real harm. You mean like that group that has torched neighborhoods, shot polive officers, shot other protesters, thrown rocks, use baseball bats on police and civilians etc etc? Or do you mean the really really scary ones like the ones that walked into Capitol Hill and had four lunatics with strips along with them while the rest were busily taking photos?
- seizethegdgap 6y ago
  That's the most hilariously disingenuous take on what happened at the Capitol that I've read so far, so points for that. Nearly 95% of all protests this summer were non-violent, and 80% of all protests were linked to BLM: https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/ https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-vi... Point out to me a single BLM protest where both: • 6 people died • BLM stormed a capitol building while the legislative body was in session
  - betwixthewires 6y ago
    So I don't have skin in the game here, and I'm definitely no fan of the comment you responded to (not appropriate for this forum and not conducive to real discussion) but I figured I'd point out 1 person was killed at the capitol and she was shot by DC police, another cop was thought to have been killed with a fire extinguisher but that is currently being investigated, and the rest died of heart attacks and things like that. To claim "6 people died" is at least as disingenuous as what you're accusing.
    - seizethegdgap 6y ago
      Maybe it was a little disingenuous. Of the 5 (my apologies) that died, 1 was a stroke, 1 was a heart attack, 1 was crushed by the mob, and we know what happened to the other 2. I could be wrong, but I still don't think there was a single BLM protest this summer where 3 people were killed.

perl4ever 6y ago

WSB wasn't all that alt-right/Nazi/whatever before the GameStop insanity, but after some clickbait articles equating them with Trump supporters, something like 6 million new people descended on them, some noticeable number of them being Trump/QAnon cultists. I suspect it was a self-fulfilling thing.

orestarod 6y ago
No Trumpists were spotted - people just wanted a piece of the pie and say fuck you to the criminals at Wall Street - but it seems the media did their job.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Oh, no. They were spotted. Afterwards. I am not talking about hearsay or "journalism". There was a thread with several tens of thousands of upvotes and someone innocently said to the effect of "that sounds almost like one of those worshippers of the orange god..." and another person said (paraphrasing) "it literally IS, they are an antivaxxer and EVERYTHING, just check their posting history". They were not lying. That doesn't prove any particular percentage of the newcomers were, but when you see one like that... But I say again, I believe this was an effect of the articles, not the cause.