|
A Deacon posted:Social media tech companies recently just banned a lot of "alt-right" accounts. Now Facebook is doing this thing where anyone can label something "fake news." Google, Facebook, and Twitter were pretty open about supporting Hillary Clinton as well. This itself is fake news: TheGuardian posted:Facebook’s plan for combating fake news, a response to mounting criticism over the spread of misinformation, particularly during the US presidential election, is theoretically relatively simple. When enough users flag a news article they think is factually inaccurate, Facebook sends the link to a digital clearing house accessible to a handful of fact-checking organizations. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/facebook-fake-news-system-problems-fact-checking Users flag the fake news; they don't label it - fact checking organizations do so. So even if Reddit swarms a true article to label it fake, it won't get past the gatekeepers.
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 20:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
Liberals don't stand out so much on the internet because saying nice things about people vanishes into the background hum of the world, but unloading a rifle of racial epithets and hate certainly sticks in the mind.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
nessin posted:If you are going to blame internet comment sections for the method by which the far-right dominates the internet you should probably focus on the fact that most non-far right media sources have been ditching forums and comment sections. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/2...versation.shtml The far right seems very patient in seeking out media they hate and commenting. The Guardian has written articles on the subject. This liberal paper is of no interest to the far right, but if you look at the comments section, there's a lot of them there (less since they beefed up their moderation and removed comments from contentious articles.) The alt-right must be doing it deliberately to try and "convert the heathen." As far as I know, liberals don't generally go to Stormfront and start posting messages of love and peace. Or maybe they do, I haven't been there!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
falcon2424 posted:If different things antagonized people, we'd see trolls posting different things. Don't think so. These guys are sincere. The results are reflected in the ballot box - the far right is booming all over the world right now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
wizard on a water slide posted:The association of politeness with left or liberal politics in this thread is extremely weird. I don't think anybody would confuse me calling someone a moronic Nazi for either right-wing or civil speech. There's different sorts of politeness "I hate Nazis" is very different from "I hate Muslims." Both sides are not the same!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Quite a lot of times, harassed people online know precisely who is harassing them, but local cops aren't exactly computer literate, and if the person is not nearby, existing laws don't make much sense.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Kilano posted:Doesn't it stand to reason that if more severe laws are put into place, people are going to avoid breaking them without putting some effort into masking their identity? If we're serious about stopping online harassment through law enforcement, I don't see a way around online ID's Do you mean that if there are laws against online harassment, people will mask their identity? I'd say some of them will but a lot of criminals are morons or insane. We should be able to at least prosecute those whose identities are known, and there should be a basic cyber-police squad who can do a little internet detecting on others. If there were prosecutions for this, even if most people were not caught, it would deter people who were thinking of doing it. There isn't many lulz in doing 18 months for internet rape threats. Most real-life criminals aren't caught, either, at least straight away. A mugger might be mugging for years before he finally gets put away. But when an ordinary person is hard up for cash, they don't think "I could mug a guy" because everyone knows muggers go to jail. Not so with internet harassment. No penalties, no deterrent.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:Quite a lot of time, harassed people purport to know who is harassing them, but refuse to produce any identifying information or documentation of the harassment of any kind, instead relying on the public declaration of "I was harassed and it was terrible" to accomplish whatever it is they intend to do Wouldn't it be great if it could be sorted out in a court of law?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Kilano posted:Haven't most of the high profile cases been people following a Milo/Right wing nut and harassing a target into oblivion? Most of sit behind throwaway accounts and spew hate. There's a lot of *low* profile cases out there which you don't hear about where some person harasses their ex online. Those aren't any easier to prosecute than Milo and his gang of fascists.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:It is more difficult for your local police department to track down a Redditor from the far side of the country who told you to "go kill urself bitch" than it is say the crazy guy on your front doorstep howling at you in person, but they can and do enforce those laws when someone brings something to their attention. Not really. A lot of the times it's out of the jurisdiction of local police, but not important enough for the FBI, so the cases languish in the local PD somewhere below "Kid got his iPhone grabbed." There's not a lot of legal understanding of crimes that take place a long distance from the perpetrator, except if they involve the mail. A Wizard of Goatse posted:Nevertheless, there's been a fairly stunning amount of willingness on the part of many harassees, especially those victimized for being politically outspoken leftists on Twitter or wherever, to protect the identity of their attackers and enable them to continue to send them threats and venom, all while wailing helplessly about it on social media, and I'm not sure what law would avert whatever terrible downside they're imagining exists now to naming and shaming the kinds of creeps who get off to menacing people online. Bullshit. This is just another way of saying "rape victims asked for it and were no angels." They are wailing helplessly because they have no legal protections, but if they were to name their harassers, their harassers could *certainly* sue them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:wait wait back up lol do you actually think law works on the "aw shucks we can't get 'im now, that boy done crossed the state line!" principle? Except in cases where people violate the famous laws against publishing evidence of another person's criminal activities, a crime taken so seriously that the police suddenly for the first time ever know what to do if someone commits a crime in another US jurisdiction? I'm not sure how it works in legal theory, but whenever I've talked to people who have been harassed online, they've been to the police and got back puzzled stares and "Why don't ya just get off them internets if they're upsetting ya, honey/pal?" suggestions. These are not just the prominent SJWs you hate either, but ordinary people harassed by exes, too. I'm sure you will reply suggesting that everyone I've ever spoken to about this issue is some high-strung attention seeker making it all up. Remember that this is what people say about rape victims too. Before DNA evidence it was nearly impossible to prosecute rape, and people used to generally assume that the woman was making it all up for attention. Guess what? When DNA evidence arrived, a lot of "cold cases" were proved to have actually happened, and a lot of "attention seekers" were vindicated. Just because a case is hard to prove doesn't mean it didn't happen, comforting though that may be.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I get that this is a hot-button issue but I'd appreciate it if certain posters ITT would stop emailing me rape threats and pictures of the many knives they intend to stab me with. I cannot actually stop you as per a law I hope the incoming administration will reform my police department has been replaced by a cardboard cutout of Chief Wiggum, but I hope you will recognize the good-faith effort at maintaining a polite discourse I have made in refusing to publish any of your correspondence which unquestionably exists, and will respond in turn If you were raped, but couldn't prove it, and you confided in a friend, would you appreciate it if he said "Prove it in court or shut up, whiner."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Unfuckable losers using the internet to reinforce in each other an ideology of misogyny and racial hatred driven from their deep loneliness and resentments seems like an obvious outcome of the internet, in hindsight. It's a wonder most internet nerds were hippies for so long. Early internet users were generally happy and successful people, either able to afford the expensive equipment to get online, or in academia. Both of these types were not the kind of people to lock themselves up in their rooms in misery; the internet was just one part of their full lives. They were also people open to new experiences by definition, and the "unfuckable internet losers" are deeply conservative in more than politics. You can see this in their worship of video games from their youth, endlessly trying to capture the exact feeling when they unwrapped Final Fantasy 7 on Christmas morning. Change scares them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
blowfish posted:If you're living in a basement (because you're a dumb gently caress who can't get his life in order and who's too incompetent to even flip burgers) and have never hosed (because you're a revolting piece of poo poo wearing a fedora no human being would touch with a ten foot pole, not because you don't want to) then yes, you're an unfuckable loser and a life failure. A life failure who would get professional help and basic income in a fairer society perhaps, but still a life failure. Judging men by how many women they have hosed is so sexist to both genders I don't know where to begin. Plenty of great guys have a decidedly non-epic sex life for whatever reason. This sort of misandristic/misogynistic message is what gets these socially-hopeless guys to get so twisted and nasty. They realise that a man is judged on his worth by how many women he has hosed, which in their case is 0. This causes them to both hate themselves and women for being the gatekeepers of male worth. A toxic stew that is the root of the rise of the alt-right. Men, please knock off judging your socially-hopeless brothers on how many women they have hosed, and we will all be much happier. BarbarianElephant fucked around with this message at 16:19 on Dec 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:check out this guy who has no idea what a cesspit usenet was I'm old, I used Usenet a little bit after it's glory days. Usenet was designed for the "genteel" days of the internet. Most groups were unmoderated. This is why it quickly turned toxic when home computers with internet connections started to exist, and people wanted to talk about things other than Unix, C, and Robert Heinlein.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm sure that's one of the aims of the alt-right. Drive out women who aren't complicit with harassment and toxic environments until the sandbox is theirs "once again." Yeah, that's why they flip out over girls playing video games while at the same time bemoaning the fact that they can't find a girlfriend who likes videogames. I suppose the ideal is a girl who loves videogames, but doesn't talk about them, particularly in a critical way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:On the other hand, legalize prostitution. Problem solved. Nope. They don't want sex just because they want sex. They want sex to validate their worth. Paying for it doesn't have that effect because it doesn't impress anyone.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 02:57
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:There isn't an easy counter for this at all. This isn't a "failure of leftism" or the result of some greasy neckbeard being called unfuckable one too many times. It's something rotten within humans, a vestigial part that never had a chance to drop off before it became an encumbrance. By adopting the same tactics to fight it, you become the same problem. The best way of fighting this fear is, like with other phobias, exposure. It's notable that people who live in cities are way more left wing and open to other cultures. They aren't necessarily paragons of righteousness. You hear plenty of low-level racism from city-dwellers, about taxi-drivers who can't speak English, or restaurant workers with no idea of hygiene. But despite this, city dwellers are almost always OK with other peoples existing, and existing near them. They realize that the "other" are people like them, who deserve to exist and live their lives in their own way (even if their cooking is unbearably stinky or their religious festivals block traffic.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Yeah but PUAs, like most scam artists, exist because there's a real problem with a lack of credible alternatives. MGTOW exist for the same reason. Nobody is giving them non-lovely dating advice. There are lots of decent self-help books and columns about dating for men out there. But a lot of these guys attracted to PUA stuff have really twisted personalities. They loathe women. I can see why they have a problem getting a date, they practically vibrate with "I am going to murder you if you refuse me." Women can *smell* that. It's a survival tactic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The PUA bullshit also sells because it promises all the sex with none of the commitment. It really appeals to people who are uninterested in any sort of connection or who are just tremendously selfish. Or both. It also appeals to people who bought into "women are pure evil" nonsense. The view is that women are only interested in your money and not you at all so just hump'n'dump all day every day. Ironically, a lot of the guys interested in PUA stuff *are* longing for an actual relationship. They are just extremely broken people and don't really understand what a relationship is. They want a woman of their own, but they loathe women. They also loathe themselves. So they project their feelings of self-hatred onto the women that don't want to date them, and seek a "cure" for their own self-hatred by tricking women into sleeping with them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'd honestly pin it on terrible formative experiences. Specifically, middle-to-highschool age young (specifically straight) males are entirely dependent, social status wise, on whether or not they can "get" a girlfriend. This leads to bullying, insinuations of homosexuality and ostracism. Socially awkward young men are put through absolute hell in that period (I can only speak for men in this situation, I'm sure it's the same or worse for women). In this age of the internet, the bullying follows them home. In the eyes of their peers, the inability to prove themselves worthy of "love" (regardless of actual, sexual contact) makes their life worthless. Many young, socially awkward men then cope with this by blaming women. After all, they're the ones judging them unworthy (instead of placing the blame where it belongs, in their peers judgement of someone's character by their relationship status in the first place). Something Awful is big on this bullying of young men by other young men in terms of their lack of sexual experience - "virgin" is one of the most popular insults here.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
21 Muns posted:If these sexually incapable young men are sitting around waiting to be radicalized into any ideology that comes around claiming to help them out, couldn't we just push them towards any of the classic religions that promoted celibacy? Just make them all monks or something. Could secularism have a (small) share of the blame here? I think it's actually related to the decline in religion. Note how many of these young men have a background in religious families but are vehement atheists (of the "your ridiculous sky fairy god" type). They seem to have taken on board the hardline religious attitude towards women (to be submissive to men) but no longer have the religious and social context for it. BarbarianElephant fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Dec 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The problem is people unpopular at school in their formative years often frequently develop an unhealthy attitude towards women that doesn't magically melt away when they, as you put it, get their 'dick wet' - resentment can last a long time, and when other misanthropes online reinforce that attitude then it can potentially never go away. Abusive partners come from *somewhere.* I figure that when guys like this actually hook a woman, their hangups mean that they are scared that she is planning to leave/cheating on them/disrespecting them, and this to them preemptively justifies them being controlling and abusive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
The alt-right are different than the right wing in general.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:Here's my dating tips for any of the alt-right who really struggle: Here are my dating tips for the alt-right: Please get therapy. But seriously, the standard dating tips don't work for these guys. Even if they wash every day, dress nicely, work out, and so forth, they will have troubles. I've known plenty of guys who are sedentary slobs who never wash who have no difficulty getting women because they actually like women and spending time with women. Their problem is that they hate women, and trying to date something you hate is a non-starter. At least if they are racists they can just avoid minority women. But no straight man can avoid women altogether, no matter how much they loathe them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Bullshit Your slightly racist aunt is exactly the same as a Neo-Nazi? Really? The alt right are Neo Nazis (or a shade away from it, since some of them don't hate Jews, just Muslims and blacks and South American immigrants.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:So what makes the alt right different from the right. They're racists? Have you met American Conservatives? The right wing in America has been flirting with fascism for loving decades at this point. The only thing that's different is they finally got to stop hiding what they really were Here we have that "difference of degree" thing that SA posters seem to have a huge problem with. Yes, there is a big difference between your uncle who tells racist jokes, and an alt-righter who thinks that Muslims should be rounded up and put in camps.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:We can talk all we love about difference of degrees. But yeah there is not much of a difference between your uncle who tells racist jokes and the guy who wants to put Muslims in camps if that uncle thinks that Muslims should be put into camps Well, duh, but I don't think most racists want that.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think they probably would if they didn't think they might suffer consequences for it. If most mild racists secretly wanted to put minorities in death camps, they would be in death camps.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:But they also have no problem with it happening. So what is the functional difference Different people would have different problems with it happening. You'd see a few Oskar Schindlers for sure. Most people are cowards. There are plenty of people who aren't racist at all but wouldn't stick out their necks for minorities if it came to it, because Nazis have no qualms about hurting people and their families if they resist, even if they are their ideal ethnicity.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Zedsdeadbaby posted:The left avoids conflict which is a good thing, but manifests itself in ways that do them no favours. The passivity means there's no fire. I'm currently involved in an argument in another thread about how rightwingers believe Clinton was a frothing warmonger trying to drag us all into WW3 with Russia. So Trump licking Russia's collective cock is a good thing, apparently. Liberals: wrong when conciliatory. Wrong when aggressive. Just. Plain. Wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Kilano posted:No, that's not what I said. "Privilege" is a means of explaining why non-white people are more likely to be poor than white people (in the USA or other similar countries.) It's not a way to say "Suck it up" to poor white people.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
The word "privilege" is not designed to make you feel bad about yourself and apologise for being born a white man. It's so that you stop saying things like "We all start out from a level playing field! If black people don't do so well, maybe they should blame their own attitude or maybe they are just genetically inferior!"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:Tell that to the white people employed at wal-mart, and see how they react. Spout some private jargon of the right wing at them (for instance, call them "takers" for getting food stamps) and you might have some new Socialists on your hands.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:So the white guy still has more privilege? Who has the most privilege, poor hick white dude struggling to feed his family or Bill Cosby? Bill Cosby wasn't born rich; he's a self made man. Privilege is about things about you that you can't change easily, like ethnicity, gender, sexuality. It's not about who is most "privileged" in the sense of current status.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:You guys might want to communicate to the alt-right that being white doesn't necessarily make you privileged anymore. Because that is actually news for probably quite a lot of them. "White privilege" is something that all white people have. But it doesn't mean that all white people are "privileged" in the sense of being hoity-toity poshos born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Obviously a homeless white drug addict from an abusive background would just love to exchange her white privilege for being one of the Obama girls! It merely means that all else being equal, the white person has an advantage over the black person. So if you take a white teenager and a black teenager from identical backgrounds, the black teenager is more likely to be accosted by police. But this is statistical. The black son of the mayor is less likely to be accosted by police than a poor white teen in a bad area.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Kit Walker posted:It's unfortunate that the term "check your privilege" is so poisoned that there's no real way to use it effectively on people who aren't already convinced privilege is a real thing. It's just easier to talk about the values behind the idea instead. I've never heard it except sarcastically.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:03 |
|
|
Nerses IV posted:Where exactly is your "real world," in which you hear terms like "check your privilege" used with absolute seriousness? Presumably a very liberal college campus.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2017 21:04
|
|