Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#41

Post by ethbro »

ethbro wrote: post #2

Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…

PS: If anyone reads this, thanks for all the thoughtful responses. I hesitated to post anything that essentially started with "Hypothetically, if I were a skinhead..." for obvious reasons.

The tone of discourse is a credit to the site and all of you.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#42

Post by ethbro »

jl6 wrote: post #15
ethbro wrote: post #2

Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…

You might be interested in Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky. TL;DR: enemies are people too.

I read Tolstoy before I tried to read Dostoyevsky. I think the sheer boredom of the former soured me on Russian literature. It's been a minute though, so I should give it another go.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#43

Post by ethbro »

s73ver_ wrote: post #39
ethbro wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point! So maybe the moral calculus comes from a weighing of both sides ultimately effected. It certainly seems more just when looked at that way vs random meme person the internet fixates on.

To be perfectly honest, I tend not to think of it too much because of that. I'm not going to partake in mass doxxing efforts, but I'm also not going to be upset when these people are shunned, or companies choose not to do business with them. There may be some ethics/morality questions that can be raised, but I believe those are more effectively raised when one of the sides isn't openly advocating for the things White…

> if these things happen to a group with more moral nuance

It's the "more moral nuance" criteria that terrifies me though. Because that's ultimately a proxy for "I feel good / bad about this group".

If rules as usual are suspended for dealing with a group, I'm not going to rest it on "Yeah, but they're bad... right?"

Advocating systematic oppression is a concrete reason. But what degree rises to forfeiting normal rights? Does the local judge who's pretty racist qualify?

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#44

Post by ethbro »

bitJericho wrote: post #14
briffle wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hadn't heard anything about these protesters in Charlottesville burning crosses in front of peoples homes. Do you have a link? And the OP never said doxing people is the same as running them down.

https://www.google.com/search?q=charlottesville+cross+burnin... I don't know what the OP is saying. Nobody's going out killing white supremacists either...

I feel like counter protestors illegally toppling Confederate statues in mobs in other cities isn't a great direction to be going.

Breaking the law for moral reasons still lessens its protections when you find yourself on the other side of someone oppressing you.

Such was Gandi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr's realization.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#45

Post by ethbro »

weberc2 wrote: post #12
ethbro wrote: post #2

Aside from the obvious everything that's troubling about the rise of white supremacist organizations, another question has been bothering me. Where's the line on what terrible things are morally just to do to terrible people? And what must those terrible people do to morally justify the actions taken against them? "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" , etc. free speech i…

I'm also concerned about who determines that someone is "a bad person". In the recent Google memo, everyone condemned the author as a horrible person based on things he never said. People wanted him burned at the stake and were willing to believe absurdities to justify it . This sort of craziness happens all the time. Slate Star Codex has a post from 2014 where Scott points out that he was reprimanded for expressing…

Morally, the comments I've agreed with most so far are those that pin resistance on two underpinnings: (1) the sheer scale of oppression by the white supremacy position espoused (ie "everyone else") & (2) the fundamental incompatibility with a pluralistic democratic society.

Of these, I think (2) is the more common argument, but also the weaker. It's pretty abstract to justify concrete actions.

The former does jive with my internal morality though. It feels like it at least starts an answer to "Why are outside-the-norm means justified now, but not at other times?"

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#46

Post by bitJericho »

ethbro wrote: post #44
bitJericho wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.google.com/search?q=charlottesville+cross+burnin... I don't know what the OP is saying. Nobody's going out killing white supremacists either...

I feel like counter protestors illegally toppling Confederate statues in mobs in other cities isn't a great direction to be going. Breaking the law for moral reasons still lessens its protections when you find yourself on the other side of someone oppressing you. Such was Gandi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr's realization.

And yet, nobody's ever seen change without breaking the law...

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#47

Post by ethbro »

bitJericho wrote: post #46
ethbro wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like counter protestors illegally toppling Confederate statues in mobs in other cities isn't a great direction to be going. Breaking the law for moral reasons still lessens its protections when you find yourself on the other side of someone oppressing you. Such was Gandi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King Jr's realization.

And yet, nobody's ever seen change without breaking the law...

Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, Jones v Mayer Co, Griggs v Duke Power Co, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges

That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system.

Laws aren't just things that codify current practice, they can also be progressive in and of themselves.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#48

Post by s73ver_ »

ethbro wrote: post #43
s73ver_ wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be perfectly honest, I tend not to think of it too much because of that. I'm not going to partake in mass doxxing efforts, but I'm also not going to be upset when these people are shunned, or companies choose not to do business with them. There may be some ethics/morality questions that can be raised, but I believe those are more effectively raised when one of the sides isn't openly advocating for the things White…

> if these things happen to a group with more moral nuance It's the "more moral nuance" criteria that terrifies me though. Because that's ultimately a proxy for "I feel good / bad about this group". If rules as usual are suspended for dealing with a group, I'm not going to rest it on "Yeah, but they're bad... right?" Advocating systematic oppression is a concrete reason. But what degree rises to forfeiting normal rig…

I think you're overthinking the extent of things. Nobody is saying these people should be shot on site, for instance. But I'm not going to lose any sleep if they're shunned by society. As long as government is not imposing anything, I'm ok with businesses not wanting to be associated with them.

Also, if you're going, "Yeah, but they're bad... right?" That implies that maybe there is nuance. I would argue that nuance is not present with Nazis.

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#49

Post by bitJericho »

ethbro wrote: post #47
bitJericho wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, nobody's ever seen change without breaking the law...

Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, Jones v Mayer Co, Griggs v Duke Power Co, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system. Laws aren't just things that codify current practice, they can also be progressive in and of themselves.

Almost all involving civil disobedience

Re: Internet turns on white supremacists and neo-Nazis with doxing, phishing

#50

Post by dragonwriter »

ethbro wrote: post #47
bitJericho wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, nobody's ever seen change without breaking the law...

Brown v Board of Education, Loving v Virginia, Jones v Mayer Co, Griggs v Duke Power Co, Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas, Obergefell v Hodges That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system. Laws aren't just things that codify current practice, they can also be progressive in and of themselves.

> That's the US judicial system. I could also pull examples from the legislative system.

All of them involved someone breaking the law on the books, and either being held accountable (e.g., Duke Power)—which I'm not sure is actual progress, though the passage of the law, which, in these examples, was usually a result of civil disobedience, might be—or having the law invalidated after the fact (e.g., Roe).

So I'm not sure how that supports progress without lawbreaking.

Post reply on HN