5 ms·

>I can't imagine how Wikileaks can be considered a so much more evil organisation than Stormfront I can, in spirit, though I wouldn't necessarily use the term

by endtime 15y ago

>I can't imagine how Wikileaks can be considered a so much more evil organisation than Stormfront I can, in spirit, though I wouldn't necessarily use the term "evil" as the comparator. Stormfront generates bigotry and hate speech. Distasteful and contempible. But Wikileaks spreads as widely as possible information which can pose real security risks to people (such as US soldiers). As a Jew, I'd rather see people support offensive but peaceful organizations like Stormfront (I'm assuming they're all talk) than organizations which may actually contribute to getting people killed.

tripzilch 15y ago
> I'm assuming they're all talk You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Stormfront is not all talk and their actions have easily endangered more lives than Wikileaks has. This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance?? I'm glad for you that you obviously live in a part of the world where hate-crimes are not much of an issue, but take a look at North East-Germany for instance. There's whole villages occupied by neo-nazis after they chased away the population that wouldn't salute the swastika flag. Yes, in the 21st century. And yes, they do assault and/or kill Jews, Gypsies, Muslims, Blacks, you name it (the ones not in those villages, obviously nobody goes there willingly). They just don't happen to affect the lives of the super-rich and powerful very much. Stormfront is quite objectively more evil than Wikileaks no matter how you spin it, unless you're ignorant or have neo-nazi tendencies yourself. Skrebbel is pretty much spot-on in his assessment.
- endtime 15y ago
  >Stormfront is not all talk and their actions have easily endangered more lives than Wikileaks has. How? What violent or dangerous actions have they taken? >This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance?? No, I think they make posts on the internet about Jews controlling the world economy, sell racist bumper stickers, etc. Offensive and stupid, but not dangerous. >Stormfront is quite objectively more evil than Wikileaks no matter how you spin it, unless you're ignorant or have neo-nazi tendencies yourself. As I said in my original comment (which you don't appear to have read very carefully), I'm Jewish and I find Stormfront offensive. I also said that evil wasn't the relevant way to compare Stormfront with Wikileaks. But, given the information I have, I think the standard position of supporting free speech so long as it doesn't endanger people is consistent with blocking donations to Wikileaks but not to Stormfront.
  - adbge 15y ago
    The stuff Wikileaks has released has had all the really sensitive stuff (like, names) removed, right? So, then, isn't the threat that Wikileaks represents mostly indirect (i.e. it might incite civil unrest if people knew what their governments were actually doing)? If that's the case, then, why defend hate speech and not Wikileaks? It seems to me that hate speech also has the very real potential of inciting violence (holocaust, pogroms, etc). I agree with you, though, that Wikileaks probably is more dangerous (in the people-could-get-killed sense) than Stormfront, right now. It certainly seems much more likely that Wikileaks could cause violent rioting (and worse) than that Stormfront will suddenly come to power, although my observations don't extend past the US. It could well be the case that neo-nazis are a bigger problem in other parts of the world. Personally, I find myself becoming more pro-Wikileaks as I see more interviews of Assange. The man is articulate and logically consistent (a rarity for any public figure) and I've found his arguments quite compelling. If you haven't seen him speak, I'd recommend it. He does a better job defending Wikileaks than anything that I could articulate in a post on HN.
    - wnight 15y ago
      It wouldn't be Wikileaks causing the riot, it'd be the people - disgusted with what they find out is being done in their names. Wikileaks is doing what the press should have done years ago. What we need to know enough to look for in the future even if nobody spells it out for us.
  - westbywest 15y ago
    > How? What violent or dangerous actions have they taken? I'm afraid I can only relate anecdotal observations, but my corner of the Midwest does sadly host an active Neo-Nazi population. A couple of my friends in the city where I live have been violently assaulted and injured by self-professed Neo-Nazis (and strangers) venturing here from rural counties looking for trouble to start. Likewise, I have a couple times seen Stormfront host threads by individuals who disagreed strongly enough with (usually far-left leaning) political protests in this city to seek identification of the protesters in any photos, names, and where they live. Along with not terribly subtle threats of violent retribution. I can certainly see recklessness in Wikileak's actions, especially revealing identities of covert agents, thereby endangering them. I would hope at my least anecdotal observation above of Stormfront's connection to violent criminal behavior makes clear both organizations do indulge in recklessness, albeit in degrees being debated here.
Tichy 15y ago
How does Wikileaks threaten soldiers? It's not as if they have a live feed from the battlefield, or their own satellite. Also, they seem to scan stuff before they release it. This "threat" really seems to be blown out of proportion. And what if a Jewish soldier is captured in battle and his enemies are avid readers of Stormfront?
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  It seems to be one of those things the media and politicians repeated so many times that people started to accept it as truth. I still haven't seen a reliable link between a release and someone dying.

by endtime 15y ago

tripzilch 15y ago

> I'm assuming they're all talk You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Stormfront is not all talk and their actions have easily endangered more lives than Wikileaks has. This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance?? I'm glad for you that you obviously live in a part of the world where hate-crimes are not much of an issue, but take a look at North East-Germany for instance. There's whole villages occupied by neo-nazis after they chased away the population that wouldn't salute the swastika flag. Yes, in the 21st century. And yes, they do assault and/or kill Jews, Gypsies, Muslims, Blacks, you name it (the ones not in those villages, obviously nobody goes there willingly). They just don't happen to affect the lives of the super-rich and powerful very much. Stormfront is quite objectively more evil than Wikileaks no matter how you spin it, unless you're ignorant or have neo-nazi tendencies yourself. Skrebbel is pretty much spot-on in his assessment.

endtime 15y ago
>Stormfront is not all talk and their actions have easily endangered more lives than Wikileaks has. How? What violent or dangerous actions have they taken? >This is the largest online community of neo-nazis on the web, for fuck's sake! What do you think they do, drum circles and interpretive dance?? No, I think they make posts on the internet about Jews controlling the world economy, sell racist bumper stickers, etc. Offensive and stupid, but not dangerous. >Stormfront is quite objectively more evil than Wikileaks no matter how you spin it, unless you're ignorant or have neo-nazi tendencies yourself. As I said in my original comment (which you don't appear to have read very carefully), I'm Jewish and I find Stormfront offensive. I also said that evil wasn't the relevant way to compare Stormfront with Wikileaks. But, given the information I have, I think the standard position of supporting free speech so long as it doesn't endanger people is consistent with blocking donations to Wikileaks but not to Stormfront.
- adbge 15y ago
  The stuff Wikileaks has released has had all the really sensitive stuff (like, names) removed, right? So, then, isn't the threat that Wikileaks represents mostly indirect (i.e. it might incite civil unrest if people knew what their governments were actually doing)? If that's the case, then, why defend hate speech and not Wikileaks? It seems to me that hate speech also has the very real potential of inciting violence (holocaust, pogroms, etc). I agree with you, though, that Wikileaks probably is more dangerous (in the people-could-get-killed sense) than Stormfront, right now. It certainly seems much more likely that Wikileaks could cause violent rioting (and worse) than that Stormfront will suddenly come to power, although my observations don't extend past the US. It could well be the case that neo-nazis are a bigger problem in other parts of the world. Personally, I find myself becoming more pro-Wikileaks as I see more interviews of Assange. The man is articulate and logically consistent (a rarity for any public figure) and I've found his arguments quite compelling. If you haven't seen him speak, I'd recommend it. He does a better job defending Wikileaks than anything that I could articulate in a post on HN.
  - wnight 15y ago
    It wouldn't be Wikileaks causing the riot, it'd be the people - disgusted with what they find out is being done in their names. Wikileaks is doing what the press should have done years ago. What we need to know enough to look for in the future even if nobody spells it out for us.
- westbywest 15y ago
  > How? What violent or dangerous actions have they taken? I'm afraid I can only relate anecdotal observations, but my corner of the Midwest does sadly host an active Neo-Nazi population. A couple of my friends in the city where I live have been violently assaulted and injured by self-professed Neo-Nazis (and strangers) venturing here from rural counties looking for trouble to start. Likewise, I have a couple times seen Stormfront host threads by individuals who disagreed strongly enough with (usually far-left leaning) political protests in this city to seek identification of the protesters in any photos, names, and where they live. Along with not terribly subtle threats of violent retribution. I can certainly see recklessness in Wikileak's actions, especially revealing identities of covert agents, thereby endangering them. I would hope at my least anecdotal observation above of Stormfront's connection to violent criminal behavior makes clear both organizations do indulge in recklessness, albeit in degrees being debated here.

Tichy 15y ago

How does Wikileaks threaten soldiers? It's not as if they have a live feed from the battlefield, or their own satellite. Also, they seem to scan stuff before they release it. This "threat" really seems to be blown out of proportion. And what if a Jewish soldier is captured in battle and his enemies are avid readers of Stormfront?

mkr-hn 15y ago
It seems to be one of those things the media and politicians repeated so many times that people started to accept it as truth. I still haven't seen a reliable link between a release and someone dying.