Social Justice Warriors hack Klan Twitter account

[WildCat]

I totally agree with WildCat. Just the other day, a man from the Philippines running a dry-cleaning shop was told by a young gentleman from the local Yakuza, "That's a real nice shop you got there. Would be a shame if something were to happen to it!"

Uh, right... let us all know when the KKK goes about extorting protection money from businesses. I'll be all for tossing them in prison when that happens.

 

[WildCat]

Just like Al Qaeda... I suppose we can ignore their threats now too then, eh?

It's "just like al Qaeda", if al Qaeda was no longer in the terrorism business.

Amazing, all the ridiculous analogies being thrown around on a critical thinking forum.

 

[angrysoba]

Uh, right... let us all know when the KKK goes about extorting protection money from businesses. I'll be all for tossing them in prison when that happens.

They don't do that WildCat. As you and I know, all the Yakuza do is give friendly compliments and advice.

 

[bit_pattern]

It's "just like al Qaeda", if al Qaeda was no longer in the terrorism business.

So you're saying the KKK isn't in the business of intimidating people anymore? Cool story...

 

[WildCat]

They don't do that WildCat. As you and I know, all the Yakuza do is give friendly compliments and advice.

So your evidence is lack of evidence?

You do realize this is a critical thinking forum?

I already showed that even the SPLC does not consider the KKK to be a threat in the current era, their heyday was in the 1920s and I don't think they've been able to muster more than 2 dozen people in one place since the 1960s. The KKK today is basically a half dozen racist morons playing dress-up.

 

[WildCat]

So you're saying the KKK isn't in the business of intimidating people anymore? Cool story...

I'm sure you're far more of an expert on the KKK than the SPLC is, your perspective from the other side of the planet allows you to see things much more clearly.

 

[angrysoba]

So your evidence is lack of evidence?

You do realize this is a critical thinking forum?

I already showed that even the SPLC does not consider the KKK to be a threat in the current era, their heyday was in the 1920s and I don't think they've been able to muster more than 2 dozen people in one place since the 1960s. The KKK today is basically a half dozen racist morons playing dress-up.

I agree with you. But...

Your source, the SPLC, seems to disagree with us:

"We've heard these types of claims often, particularly after the election of Barack Obama," Lecia Brooks, the Southern Poverty Law Center's outreach director, told VICE News. "There is simply no way to verify whether it is true or simply a publicity stunt."

Brooks called the Klan's efforts to capitalize on the tensions surrounding Ferguson "sickening but not surprising."

"After all, the Klan is America's oldest racist hate group and has been responsible for some of the most heinous acts of domestic terrorism this country has seen, all in the name of white supremacy," she said. "This group's threat of using 'lethal force' is nothing but vigilantism, and has no place in America. Local law enforcement should take note."

https://news.vice.com/article/kkk-missouri-chapter-threatens-ferguson-protesters-with-lethal-force

 

[Foolmewunz]

What is "in force"? A half dozen people at best? How is a counter-protest a threat to the protest? Remember, this is the USA where dissent is allowed, we are not ruled by a military junta.

You go, WC! You got in another dig about the fascist government I so adore. Keep digging. You're only embarrassing yourself,... if that's possible.

Please show me where you see "counter-protest". They are saying directly that they are coming out to protect property and prevent "terrorists" (for which evidence they offer..... ??? Nada....).

I put it there to draw attention to the fact that you are openly supporting a group that actually did do illegal acts in order to suppress the free speech of others, and in fact said you'd gladly do the time in prison for them for doing so.

Yeah. It's called civil disobedience. Glad to see you figured out what it means. I'd have thought with your activism and involvement with the ACLU, you'd be aware that some of us think it's a legitimate tactic. The main theme, though, is that "if you do the crime, you do the time". Or as Henry David Thoreau said to R.W. Emerson when Emerson asked "Henry, what are you doing in jail??!!", "The question is, Ralph, 'What are you doing not in jail?' ".

You have a problem with that? I support their non-right (as civil disobedience is not a right, but a tradition). I also believe that if you feel strongly enough about something that you should stand up and pay the price.

I'm pretty sure that is not the pro-free speech position.

Good thing I never said it was, then. I seem to recall saying, in fact, that it's not about free speech. It's about right and wrong.

You're an American who left the USA decades ago to live in dictatorships and are now voicing support for groups that use illegal means to suppress the free speech of others. I'm pretty certain that the ACLU would take my side in this debate in the name of supporting freedom of speech, while Thailand's ruling military junta and China's Communist Party would take yours in the name of suppressing it.

When you get all lost in teh weird, it's hard to follow you. Do you have a problem traveling? Are you on no-fly lists? Maybe you should get out more often, or at least learn to read for comprehension. If you think Hong Kong is remotely part of Communist China, you're more ill-informed than I gave you credit for. And as I've mentioned (and I know you've read), I'm in Thailand because my son is American-Thai and I have no nuclear family left in the States and wanted my son to grow up with family.

Why yes I do, in this very thread you said you not only support the Anonymous acts to suppress free speech you also said you'd do their prison time for them if you could.


Oh, the irony! The KKK didn't do anything anonymously, unlike... Anonymous. Their name was on their flyer and everything, and they posed with faces exposed on their public Twitter accounts.

Whose names were on the flyer? The KKK logo is on the flyer. That's like saying "Anyonymous isn't anonymous, it says right here that the campaign is by Anonymous." Surely you're not saying that these brave hooded terrorists signed their names? Why are they then so upset that they're being outed? I'm just confused.

From the same article quoted earlier:




If you have evidence this groups is engaging in terrorism then feel free to present it. This is a skeptic's forum dedicated to critical thinking, not a name-calling forum where we accuse people of racism simply because they believe in free speech. I am fighting for freedom of speech for all, you are supporting those who act illegally to restrict the freedom of speech for people they don't like. Which is exactly in line with the policies of the rulers of the last 2 countries you have lived in - the Communist Party of China and the military junta ruling Thailand.

You think they're the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight? A bunch of bumbling idiots? They are playing on the masked marauder element of the Klan. They are addressing it to people who have very good reason to have historical memories of the Klan. And they are warning demonstrators ('cuz I haven't seen any notices of "Terrorists Planning to Attend Ferguson Demonstrations", have you) that the big bad Klan is coming to town.

You evidently think they've cleverly avoided and damning words. I think they've pretty much made my case for me in their and their Grand Wizard's follow up words. "It's hunting season and...." is not even as subtle as "2nd Amendment Solutions" which is already a call to arms and everyone knows it.

The fact that you want to play uber-skeptic and say that this is their right, is where we disagree. I think the Klan and any semblance of it should have been outlawed fifty or a hundred years ago. Period.

Do you think the ACLU are supporters of Nazis because they went to court to force the government to allow the Nazis to march through a heavily Jewish area? Because that's perfectly analogous to the accusations against me because I support the KKK's right to free speech just as much as I support the protester's right to free speech.

When you get back from your meeting at the ACLU, drop me a line. There's a huge difference between supporting the rights of assembly and free speech and the rights of the hill folk to threaten demonstrators. I'm going to be real surprised if the ACLU takes up their cause, but you drop me a line when they do.


ETA: You live in Illinois, don't you? So you're a supporter of the Democratic machine and its policies, I see. (Works according to your logic.)

 

[WildCat]

I agree with you. But...

Your source, the SPLC, seems to disagree with us:



https://news.vice.com/article/kkk-missouri-chapter-threatens-ferguson-protesters-with-lethal-force

Seems that the SPLC needs to get their spokespeople on the same page. At any rate the use of lethal force as allowed under law is not vigilantism, and that's all the flyer claims they will do.

From the SPLC site:

Since the 1970s the Klan has been greatly weakened by internal conflicts, court cases, a seemingly endless series of splits and government infiltration. While some factions have preserved an openly racist and militant approach, others have tried to enter the mainstream, cloaking their racism as mere "civil rights for whites." Today, the Center estimates that there are between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members, split among dozens of different - and often warring - organizations that use the Klan name.

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/ku-klux-klan

This isn't the KKK of old, it's group taking it's last dying breaths of air and Anonymous just gave them a tank of oxygen.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Any Missourans (is that the right term?) in the thread? Wasn't there a former KKK guy from the Carolinas who shot up a Synagogue a couple of years ago in KC? I'm sure he'd handed in his sheets by then, though. The New Improved^TM Klan doesn't have any shoot-up-a-synagogue members, I'm certain.

 

[phiwum]

First, I understand what you're saying but I don't think this is a good example. How would Klan members be fired, by someone telling their employer, "Joe belongs to the Klu Klux Klan." Would that be enough? Might be. I belong to the New York Historical Society; if my employer found out...so what? If someone belongs to a group -- actually a hate group -- considered so vile that mere membership is enough to get you fired maybe the person should rethink their membership. Second, they're not doing this against Klan members because they don't "toe the line sufficiently regarding" Anonymous' agenda. They're doing this because they regard the Klan the same way you do:

Out of curiosity, would the highlighted bit apply to the Red Scare of the 1950s?

Suppose that, instead of a government committee publicly searching for Commies, it had been an anonymous group publicizing membership lists. I imagine that being publicly outed as a Commie at the time could have a seriously deleterious effect on your employment (no?). Would you offer the same response to the Communists?

Obviously, I don't think that Communists are morally equivalent to the KKK, but the fact is that your highlighted claim seems to apply to Commies in the Red Scare, just as easily as to modern racists. (Maybe Commies weren't a "hate group", but I take it that the claim stands without that clause.)

 

[bit_pattern]

I'm sure you're far more of an expert on the KKK than the SPLC is, your perspective from the other side of the planet allows you to see things much more clearly.

Yes. Because how could someone in one country possibly know anything about any other country in the internet age? That's a perfectly good reason for dismissing an argument instead of actually addressing it. Because, you know, critical thinking! While we're at it, let's all laugh at Foolmewunz again for living in Thailand

 

[phiwum]

Maybe, but that's not really a good argument. If the test is "If you belong to a group so reviled that people will fire you for belonging to it, then you should rethink your membership" then the bar could be set low. Remember that lots of people hated Communists in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s etc... and were fired on the basis of such associations. I think we generally think that was wrong now, don't we?

As for this specific incident, I can see it being acceptable if these groups were promising violence.

Doggone it, should've read the rest of the thread before posting my response.

Soba is always stealing me message.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Did you actually read the letter? It was clearly intended to intimidate people who would physically attack them or their families, not for speaking out. And that's an acceptable use of lethal force in every state of the USA.

Does the Klan have a good track record in this regard?

 

[phiwum]

Starch. Lots and lots of starch.

Now you've done it. You've just been added to the Anonymous list of interesting persons.

And, yes, I know that "Anonymous list of interesting persons" sounds like an oxymoron, but you know what I meant.

 

[phiwum]

Yeah, I'm right up there with Mississippi Burning. Whatever is needed. You give these creeps the protection of the law and allow them to hide in their local communities, sheriff's departments, town councils, etc... and you ARE SUPPORTING TERRORISTS. Maybe not the dark-skinned swarthy version of terrorists that the paleos prefer; that's too bad. If there was ever an American group that is terroristic, it's the Ku Klux Klan. If ever there was a group that was the antithesis of what the USA is supposed to stand for, it's the Ku Klux Klan.

Did you really mean what you said there?

Namely, that anyone claiming the KKK deserves equal protection under the law is abetting terrorism? That is, that it is a bad thing to argue that racists have the same basic rights as others?

 

[WildCat]

You go, WC! You got in another dig about the fascist government I so adore. Keep digging. You're only embarrassing yourself,... if that's possible.

Please show me where you see "counter-protest". They are saying directly that they are coming out to protect property and prevent "terrorists" (for which evidence they offer..... ??? Nada....).

They said they would act according to the law.

Yeah. It's called civil disobedience. Glad to see you figured out what it means. I'd have thought with your activism and involvement with the ACLU, you'd be aware that some of us think it's a legitimate tactic. The main theme, though, is that "if you do the crime, you do the time". Or as Henry David Thoreau said to R.W. Emerson when Emerson asked "Henry, what are you doing in jail??!!", "The question is, Ralph, 'What are you doing not in jail?' ".

I'm pretty sure that what Anonymous did is called a "felony", not civil disobedience.

You have a problem with that? I support their non-right (as civil disobedience is not a right, but a tradition). I also believe that if you feel strongly enough about something that you should stand up and pay the price.

Hacking web sites owned by others is a felony, and an attempt to restrict the free speech rights of others. That is not "civil disobedience". And civil rights protesters back in the day engaged in civil disobedience in an effort to support the rights of others, not to restrict the rights of others as Anonymous does and which you are supporting. That's kind of a significant difference.

Good thing I never said it was, then. I seem to recall saying, in fact, that it's not about free speech. It's about right and wrong.

And now you prove my point - you only support freedom of speech for views you hold. Just like the Communist Party of China and the military junta in Thailand.

When you get all lost in teh weird, it's hard to follow you. Do you have a problem traveling? Are you on no-fly lists? Maybe you should get out more often, or at least learn to read for comprehension. If you think Hong Kong is remotely part of Communist China, you're more ill-informed than I gave you credit for. And as I've mentioned (and I know you've read), I'm in Thailand because my son is American-Thai and I have no nuclear family left in the States and wanted my son to grow up with family.

Hong Kong is definitely part of Communist China, and the mainland has been asserting its power as of late. And if you think your family is better off under a military junta that's your choice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/01/world/asia/hong-kong-elections.html

Whose names were on the flyer? The KKK logo is on the flyer. That's like saying "Anyonymous isn't anonymous, it says right here that the campaign is by Anonymous." Surely you're not saying that these brave hooded terrorists signed their names? Why are they then so upset that they're being outed? I'm just confused.

heir web site is listed right on the flyer, and the Grand poobah's name is listed there and everything, even gives interviews to the news media. They have pictures of themselves, unmasked, on their web site and Twitter accounts. Anonymous didn't "unmask" these idiots, they gave them more publicity than they could have ever hoped to achieve on their own.

You think they're the Gang Who Couldn't Shoot Straight? A bunch of bumbling idiots? They are playing on the masked marauder element of the Klan. They are addressing it to people who have very good reason to have historical memories of the Klan. And they are warning demonstrators ('cuz I haven't seen any notices of "Terrorists Planning to Attend Ferguson Demonstrations", have you) that the big bad Klan is coming to town.

You evidently think they've cleverly avoided and damning words. I think they've pretty much made my case for me in their and their Grand Wizard's follow up words. "It's hunting season and...." is not even as subtle as "2nd Amendment Solutions" which is already a call to arms and everyone knows it.

The fact that you want to play uber-skeptic and say that this is their right, is where we disagree. I think the Klan and any semblance of it should have been outlawed fifty or a hundred years ago. Period.

It's the blathering of a group with no power or influence, and of whom no one would have heard of had not Anonymous raised their profile.

When you get back from your meeting at the ACLU, drop me a line. There's a huge difference between supporting the rights of assembly and free speech and the rights of the hill folk to threaten demonstrators. I'm going to be real surprised if the ACLU takes up their cause, but you drop me a line when they do.

Since the government is not trying to prevent this group from demonstrating there's no need for the ACLU to take up their cause. However, the ACLU has taken up the cause of the KKK in the past. This whole free speech thing seems to have you confused, probably from living for decades in places where it is unknown. I'm unaware of the ACLU ever in its history fighting to suppress the free speech of others, like the actions of Anonymous which you support.

ETA: You live in Illinois, don't you? So you're a supporter of the Democratic machine and its policies, I see. (Works according to your logic.)

Err, now you're even more confused. It's your side that is claiming that those who support Wilson are racist and offering this flyer as proof of that.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Out of curiosity, would the highlighted bit apply to the Red Scare of the 1950s?

Suppose that, instead of a government committee publicly searching for Commies, it had been an anonymous group publicizing membership lists. I imagine that being publicly outed as a Commie at the time could have a seriously deleterious effect on your employment (no?). Would you offer the same response to the Communists?

Obviously, I don't think that Communists are morally equivalent to the KKK, but the fact is that your highlighted claim seems to apply to Commies in the Red Scare, just as easily as to modern racists. (Maybe Commies weren't a "hate group", but I take it that the claim stands without that clause.)

No, they're not the same, but it might surprise you to know that a lot of people on the left who were communists (aka "commies") or fellow travelers (unionists, civil rights workers, socialists) were calling for people to out themselves and turn the witch hunt into a constitutional crisis. There were many socialists and communists in the USA from the 20s through 40s. The biggest heels of the hearings were the rats who not only lied about their previous involvement, but claimed they'd seen the light and started naming names, knowing that others would suffer at the hands of the hysteria. I knew a number of academics from that period who got blacklisted in various ways, but they outed themselves rather than getting ratted on (but that was the NYC radicals... they were kinda proud of the heritage, bunch of Trotskyists and hard line Marxists!).

And if I was a bible-thumping vile racist and anti-semite? I'd like to think that I'd believe enough in my cause and my beliefs that I'd be recommending the same thing to the other pinheads in the Klavern. Out yourselves! Stand up and be proud of your reprehensible beliefs.

 

[Unabogie]

So your evidence is lack of evidence?

You do realize this is a critical thinking forum?

I already showed that even the SPLC does not consider the KKK to be a threat in the current era, their heyday was in the 1920s and I don't think they've been able to muster more than 2 dozen people in one place since the 1960s. The KKK today is basically a half dozen racist morons playing dress-up.

So at first you couched this as a defense of the Klan's right to voice abhorrent views, sort of like it's you and the ACLU, out there fighting the good fight. But little by little, you've now morphed that argument into a spirited defense of the Klan itself. You're saying that they don't commit crimes anymore, so they're not as bad as Anonymous. You're saying the SPLC doesn't consider them a "threat" anymore, then you mitigate their numbers down to half dozen people, even though the OP shows far more faces than this just in Klansmen behind the threats against black people in Ferguson. You're saying that their clear threat of physical violence, along with their inclusion of the Missouri laws regarding justifiable homicide, aren't even actually threats. In post after post, you're defending the honor of the Klan.

I think this thread is quite eye-opening.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Err, now you're even more confused. It's your side that is claiming that those who support Wilson are racist and offering this flyer as proof of that.

Is this a skeptical forum? Please show me where I've even mentioned Wilson's name, much less associated the Klan with him. I don't give a rat's ass for Wilson. This thread, as much as you'd like it to be, is not about Ferguson. It's about the Klan and their right to distort a section of the law and use it to threaten demonstrators.

So who's confused, Wildcat? You're making up positions. (And frankly, you're not very good at it, but that's to be expected from someone who chooses to live in Illinois, after all.)