221–230 of 337 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they are. Fox News as slanted as it is, doesn't endorse terrorism or anything along these lines the way some internet communities or message boards do. There's really no comparison between even the worst tabloid newspaper and some of the stuff that festers on the internet.
> doesn't endorse terrorism The use propaganda to make people support the war effort against the Middle East. Ask people in the Middle East who the terrorists are.
The only individual who is saying to not do that is... Tucker Carlson, who is on Fox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That looney was radicalised on the Internet, by a subset of Internet culture.
He explicitly said visiting Paris and Turkey radicalized him.
Lastly, it is a mistake to take a document intended as propaganda directly at face value; for instance, his claims of "ecofascism" on inspection seem to be more intentionally selected to inspire infighting between political left and right (one of his aims he claims to have regarding gun legislation) rather than motivated by any genuine concern for the environment; for example, his manifesto was devoid of environmental concerns unless we were to first concede a fascist obsession with racial birthrate disparites is an "ecological" concern.
It's almost like they give more of a shit about people posting things on the internet than some looney slaughtering 51 people.
- he posted on sites which were considered targets. - he posted a manifesto online (it's been censored in NZ) - he livestreamed the act (also censored) - his attack has been referenced by subsequent attacks (this was his goal) - he wants to use the courts as a platform (our media has voluntarily agreed to censor proceedings) - he said his rights are being infringed by not having phone and other communication (his "ri…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness.
> What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness. No, it isn't. Inevitably someone like yourself will come into threads like these and attempt to start a slippery slope argument by trying to imply that the subject at hand is meaningless and, therefore, all attempts to address it are arbitrary. It really is strange how, for certain subjects, people just forget how English works…
Have you read the Christchurch manifesto? I have. One of his goals was accelerationism, to actively get more people banned from communication by taking extreme actions, so that they get angrier and driven to more violent actions themselves. And we're playing right into the hands of him and those who think like him by banning and censoring everything in sight.
Everyone decried censorship, but always fails to provide an alternative to try and stop extremism online.
What constitutes ‘extremism’? It’s a term so vague as to be practically meaninglessness.
The reason why I bring this up is because I've often seen people embracing laws or actions targeting immigrants, but isn't this in effect the same slippery slope as attempting to define extremism when we talk about free speech? Especially as immigration law is often expanded over time, encroaching on the rights of 'citizen' (a term which is also eroded over time) as we define a secondary class of people of which your typical rights do not apply to.
If we want to play the definition game, the exact definition of the word 'immigrant' depends entirely on the ruling class, ergo makes laws affecting immigrants equally as likely to cause the slippery slope effect as laws that affect extremists.
This just sounds like a giant can of worms that is going to blow up in people's faces. Remove for a moment any potential future government alignments, just so we aren't talking about hypothetical fictitious governments. Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it. Indonesia has harsh religious laws, crack downs on illegal reporting, and literally raids on LGBTQ gatherings. The Senegal government arbitra…
This is definitely incorrect: > The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there. If extremism couldn't be effectively spread, extremists wouldn't bother trying. But they put quite a lot of effort into recruiting and propaganda. For those interested, I strongly recommend Neiwart's "Alt-America": https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MT2KCB2/ He's a journalist who in the 80s and 90s was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
4Chan and LiveLeak have both been blocked (via DNS) in Australia and New Zealand. So, the scrutiny albeit region specific has occurred.
Just to expand on this a little bit, it is contingent on ISP and as far as I know, the following websites: - voat.co - 4chan.org - 8ch.net - liveleak.com - archive.is - bitchute.com - zerohedge.com - kiwifarms.net I think I'm right in saying that Telstra, Optus and Vodafone are the 'Big Three', and they have blocked the above. Here in NZ, It's Vodafone, Spark and 2 Degrees, all of whom, I understand, blocked access,…
This just sounds like a giant can of worms that is going to blow up in people's faces. Remove for a moment any potential future government alignments, just so we aren't talking about hypothetical fictitious governments. Let's just examine the governments currently signed to it. Indonesia has harsh religious laws, crack downs on illegal reporting, and literally raids on LGBTQ gatherings. The Senegal government arbitra…
> The hate isn't "spreading through social media" the hate and the fear were already there. This is an idea worth examining more closely. In one view, social media acts as simply a passive reflection of an existing culture; in another, social media reproduces that culture which later becomes (in part) a reflection of social media etc. The causality goes both ways. Organised white supremacists have decided that social…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to expand on this a little bit, it is contingent on ISP and as far as I know, the following websites: - voat.co - 4chan.org - 8ch.net - liveleak.com - archive.is - bitchute.com - zerohedge.com - kiwifarms.net I think I'm right in saying that Telstra, Optus and Vodafone are the 'Big Three', and they have blocked the above. Here in NZ, It's Vodafone, Spark and 2 Degrees, all of whom, I understand, blocked access,…
Wait, are you saying that watching the video is considered a crime in and of itself? Not redistribution, and not even mere possession, but just seeing it?
It also falls under the US supreme court test for obscenity and is equally illegal in the US