daily stormer got hacked by anonymous

[PhantOS]

I hate to push a fallacy, but history tends to backup this fallacy making it less of a fallacy and more of an ignored truth. But, the slippery slope idea is more than Idea with this. Whether for good or for bad, when a movement or group is pressured into giving up or disbanding, that will likely not cause them to get stronger, but in reality may cause them to fall apart. But if they're forced to disband, and all into obscurity, effectively becoming an martyr of their beliefs than it is very likely they will grow in strength each time that happens. And eventually that will lead to the powerful burning their bridges and the powerless rebuilding them for themselves.

Yes, this is a "Slippery Slope" fallacy at heart, but the slippery slope has happened many times throughout history like this, it all starts with shutting down a rogue group because you disagree with their beliefs and this specific recent event happened, and then its shutting down bigger and bigger platforms until the justifications start to disappear, and you don't need a reason because they have a precedent.

Then the apposing side will eventually gain a following of their own due to the authoritarian nature of the current ruling precedent. Whether it be by hard-felt beliefs or desperate people, a man who offers anything in exchange for power, despite his past, despite his ethics, will gain it, and if that happens, then it's way to late to reverse the course.

Be careful silencing voices, if you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine, for better or for worse.

leave it to master matthew to defend a website that fatshamed a dead woman who they killed

[Ad Bot]

[Deus Ex]

I hate to push a fallacy, but history tends to backup this fallacy making it less of a fallacy and more of an ignored truth. But, the slippery slope idea is more than Idea with this. Whether for good or for bad, when a movement or group is pressured into giving up or disbanding, that will likely not cause them to get stronger, but in reality may cause them to fall apart. But if they're forced to disband, and all into obscurity, effectively becoming an martyr of their beliefs than it is very likely they will grow in strength each time that happens. And eventually that will lead to the powerful burning their bridges and the powerless rebuilding them for themselves.

Yes, this is a "Slippery Slope" fallacy at heart, but the slippery slope has happened many times throughout history like this, it all starts with shutting down a rogue group because you disagree with their beliefs and this specific recent event happened, and then its shutting down bigger and bigger platforms until the justifications start to disappear, and you don't need a reason because they have a precedent.

Then the apposing side will eventually gain a following of their own due to the authoritarian nature of the current ruling precedent. Whether it be by hard-felt beliefs or desperate people, a man who offers anything in exchange for power, despite his past, despite his ethics, will gain it, and if that happens, then it's way to late to reverse the course.

Be careful silencing voices, if you strike them down, they will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine, for better or for worse.

They got shut down for the defamatory remarks, not the ideological disagreements.

leave it to master matthew to defend a website that fatshamed a dead woman who they killed

Can you not

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

one of you forgeters should get around to changing your avatars. this is confusing.

Can you not

What's wrong with with what he said? I actually don't know.

[PhantOS]

Can you not

do you not know how quick this forgeter will switch between 'now is the time for cnn and youtube to fall! me an intellectual!' to 'neo national socialist site did nothing wrong...'

one of you forgeters should get around to changing your avatars. this is confusing.

i set this as mine like 10 minutes before deus ex did

[Master Matthew²]

They got shut down for the defamatory remarks, not the ideological disagreements.

What happened is they got shutdown because the political power hungry children of the left bitched hard enough for it to happen.
How long until it's less selective?
How long until Riddler is Pewdiepie?

[Tactical Nuke]

how long until you make an ass of yourself again

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

What happened is they got shutdown because the political power hungry children of the left bitched hard enough for it to happen.
How long until it's less selective?
How long until Riddler is Pewdiepie?

I know, right? If we don't do something right now, people will equate people who make youtube videos with genocidal warmongers! This is a real and rational thing to be afraid of!

[Master Matthew²]

I know, right? If we don't do something right now, people will equate people who make youtube videos with genocidal warmongers! This is a real and rational thing to be afraid of!

When everyone they don't like is a national socialist, and they shutdown websites because "national socialist" website + offended bitching, that's too much power for one person. Silencing websites and people because you're offended enough and the companies give in because something something advertisers, even though the advertisers wouldn't give in if companies didn't give in, like youtube forgeted up with pewdiepie.

When you silence people instead of refuting them, you empower them. Thats why you saw a charlottesville, silence the stufflords, empower the people you swear to destroy. Yeah, sure they took it a bit far with what they said, but because it was only an offensive article, and not an article that made a call to violence or something of that nature it's very clear this wasn't justified.

Because, Yes Even stufflord Pseudo-national socialists have Freedom of Speech.

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.

Silence is the most powerful weapon you can use against yourself.

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

Explain that leap of logic to me. So a company shuts down a national socialist news media outlet, and don't forget me with me and add quotation marks here - stormfront the daily stormer was a through and through neo-national socialist website. The immediate result of this is that that news media is gone. It has to move to another domain, and the readership will, more or less, follow it there. Not much changes. They feel... I guess attacked? How does that empower them? How does a website host saying "stop doing national socialist stuff" make the people doing the national socialist stuff more powerful, and how does that lead to events like Charlottesville?

Because, Yes Even stufflord Pseudo-national socialists have Freedom of Speech.

Kinda weird you're pulling all the stops here to avoid calling them national socialists/neonational socialists. Anyway, they have freedom of speech as much as their website hosts have the freedom to not let them talk on their platforms. It goes both ways. Having someone forget off if perfectly legal if they're on your property.

[The Murderous Cop]

hey quickly sidestepping in to post news related to this topic

according to an 'official' anonymous twitter, they appear to not have been behind the 'attack' at all, and it was more than likely a false hoax (tweets are here on a snopes article, no other article had most of these)
they then tried to move to a russian domain, but quickly got dropped basically a day later
the tor project also doesn't want them, but can't decide as to who uses the service

so as it stands they're not in a good condition right now

anyways, that's all i have for now. back to you guys arguing about something i guess

[Master Matthew²]

Explain that leap of logic to me. So a company shuts down a national socialist news media outlet, and don't forget me with me and add quotation marks here - stormfront was a through and through neo-national socialist website. The immediate result of this is that that news media is gone. It has to move to another domain, and the readership will, more or less, follow it there. Not much changes. They feel... I guess attacked? How does that empower them? How does a website host saying "stop doing national socialist stuff" make the people doing the national socialist stuff more powerful, and how does that lead to events like Charlottesville?

Because it's less "they're a national socialist Website" and more a "I'm super forgetin' offended because of this website" situation. Meaning they're shutting down websites due to simple peer pressure of the offended variety. That's really loving alarming.

Kinda weird you're pulling all the stops here to avoid calling them national socialists/neonational socialists.

Because as much as they act like forgetin national socialists, they're clearly south park level trolls, doing anything to get a rise out of people, and gather the /pol/ super-autists.

Anyway, they have freedom of speech as much as their website hosts have the freedom to not let them talk on their platforms. It goes both ways. Having someone forget off if perfectly legal if they're on your property.

Might does not make right, friends.  You can't host a party and then fling stuff at people because it's "your party".  If you cheat at your own dm you are a pathetic child.

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

Because it's less "they're a national socialist Website" and more a "I'm super forgetin' offended because of this website" situation. Meaning they're shutting down websites due to simple peer pressure of the offended variety. That's really loving alarming.

Why is that alarming? Hosting is a business. People exert pressure on businesses to make/support products they want. If this hosting company thinks that hosting a neo-national socialist website is going to hurt them, they are well within their rights and within rationality to not host it. That's not peer-pressure. That's owning a business and maintaining a public image.

Because as much as they act like forgetin national socialists, they're clearly south park level trolls, doing anything to get a rise out of people, and gather the /pol/ super-autists.

Please substantiate this. If they're entirely harmless, prove it. In what way is the content hosting not threatening A) to people who might be the targets of what's written on the website and, B) to the hosts of the website who are trying to maintain an image as a reputable website host

Might does not make right, friends.  You can't host a party and then fling stuff at people because it's "your party".  If you cheat at your own dm you are a pathetic child.

That's not... This isn't even close to the context of that quote. Even if it were, is there no better source for "Being a richard to people because you're in a position of authority is wrong" than the admin? Couldn't you have just said that yourself without having to appeal to authority?

Might does not make right barely applies here. You're acting like civilization is about to fall apart because website hosts don't want to host national socialists. They are literally allowed to do it. They are literally allowed to do it to anyone. No one's rights are being infringed upon.

If you wanna take the brown townogy above further, if someone "throws stuff at you," you know what you do? You leave, and you tell everyone he threw stuff at you. If the person doing it was wrong to do it, then the public will agree and exert social pressures on that person to throw less stuff. If this website host is really so wrong do this, then that will be the public response.


Also, you never explained how removing the website empowered the people who used it, and how it relates to violence. Please explain that.

[Master Matthew²]

Why is that alarming? Hosting is a business. People exert pressure on businesses to make/support products they want. If this hosting company thinks that hosting a neo-national socialist website is going to hurt them, they are well within their rights and within rationality to not host it. That's not peer-pressure. That's owning a business and maintaining a public image.
Please substantiate this. If they're entirely harmless, prove it. In what way is the content hosting not threatening A) to people who might be the targets of what's written on the website and, B) to the hosts of the website who are trying to maintain an image as a reputable website host

No, if they're harmful you prove it, you made the claim their harmful, that burden of proof is on you. They haven't told randoms to go out and kill people, they haven't advocated for terrorist actions, they've just said very mean things that hurt the feelings of certain people.

I understand the logic of the companies doing this, honestly I do, but they should realize that if they set this precedent, as they have, for these political lunatics then it will only justify them to cry wolf over loving anything as they have done before. How long did it take for them to destroy the definition of "tribal". tribal once meant a person with malicious intent to stop or slow the advancement of people based on their skin color, ethnicity or general racial background. But now it means anyone who says something offensive in regards to race. The problem with that is that offense is relative because offense is always taken and never given.

If you wanna take the brown townogy above further, if someone "throws stuff at you," you know what you do? You leave, and you tell everyone he threw stuff at you. If the person doing it was wrong to do it, then the public will agree and exert social pressures on that person to throw less stuff. If this website host is really so wrong do this, then that will be the public response.

And that's not what's happening here?

Well it is happening, but then you have autistic screeching from the other side telling them to throw even harder.

The issue is these are the people who hold up the internet, and if they keep this stuff up and start targeting anyone they determine to be national socialists they will:
A. cause a Rise in these radical views due to their attempts at silencing them.
B. Alienate people

Also, you never explained how removing the website empowered the people who used it, and how it relates to violence. Please explain that.

Silencing the viewpoints of anyone, instead of attempting to refute them shows those who have those viewpoints they're right, even if they're not, because you showed weakness in just shutting them down instead of proving them wrong. Also to those who were not in to those perspectives will eventually witness this attempt at forced silence due to it being part of this political selection, and this will lead to more who were on the fence moving over to this perspective.

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

No, if they're harmful you prove it, you made the claim their harmful, that burden of proof is on you. They haven't told randoms to go out and kill people, they haven't advocated for terrorist actions, they've just said very mean things that hurt the feelings of certain people.

Sure. national socialist ideology is harmful because it explicitly calls for violence against others. It motivates people to harm each other. But whatever, if that doesn't do it for you, I don't think there's much I can do to convince you to think that following and preaching an ideology with "kill people different from you" on the agenda is harmful.

I understand the logic of the companies doing this, honestly I do, but they should realize that if they set this precedent, as they have, for these political lunatics then it will only justify them to cry wolf over loving anything as they have done before. How long did it take for them to destroy the definition of "tribal". tribal once meant a person with malicious intent to stop or slow the advancement of people based on their skin color, ethnicity or general racial background. But now it means anyone who says something offensive in regards to race. The problem with that is that offense is relative because offense is always taken and never given

Who is "they?" What have they "done before?" Since when was the term "tribal" destroyed?

And that's not what's happening here?

Well it is happening, but then you have autistic screeching from the other side telling them to throw even harder.

The issue is these are the people who hold up the internet, and if they keep this stuff up and start targeting anyone they determine to be national socialists they will:
A. cause a Rise in these radical views due to their attempts at silencing them.
B. Alienate people
Silencing the viewpoints of anyone, instead of attempting to refute them shows those who have those viewpoints they're right, even if they're not, because you showed weakness in just shutting them down instead of proving them wrong. Also to those who were not in to those perspectives will eventually witness this attempt at forced silence due to it being part of this political selection, and this will lead to more who were on the fence moving over to this perspective.

Please rewrite this in English. I really have no idea what you're trying to tell me here. My guess is that you're trying to say that removing the website is silencing them? I mean, it isn't. Eventually they'll find a webhost who cares more about money than integrity who'll host them.

How is that weakness? How is removing a website going to make people believe more in the socially unacceptable ideology? Who are these people on the fence about whether or not national socialistsm is okay? Please start actually answering my questions instead of replying in broad strokes. I'm putting an effort in here, and you're kinda not. To reiterate, actually explain how these things you're describing happen. Removing a website makes the people who agree with it more powerful - loving how? Explain that.

[beachbum111111]

the tor project also doesn't want them,