Social Justice Warriors hack Klan Twitter account

[Foolmewunz]

The ACLU has defended the KKK's rights (assemble and speak) in the past. That said I've no sympathy for the klan in this case.

Ranb

I've seen the ACLU defending their right to speak and to have peaceful demonstrations. I'm waiting for Wildcat to report back from his Illinois Branch Meeting with the ACLU as to when they are going to step in here to defend their right to make threats of vigilantism and to send armed people to a demonstration.

 

[colander]

I think p. much everyone who knows what the KKK is knows that KKK members won't hesitate to use deadly force on black protestors who they think are trying to attack them.

I also think whoever wrote up that flyer was probably aware that most people already know the KKK's position Re: what the KKK plans to do if they think a black person is attacking them.

So I guess my question here is: what message was the KKK person who made that flyer really trying to impart?

Considering the rest of the stuff written on the flyer and also taking this KKK branch's violence-intimating tweets into account, I feel like the message here was probably something like "we are soon going to begin attacking protestors who we feel are looting white-owned businesses"

 

[Ranb]

I've seen the ACLU defending their right to speak and to have peaceful demonstrations. I'm waiting....

I was responding to a post about the shame of defending the KKK for anything. Unless a person (especially a klucker) is actually standing in front of property to stop rioters from looting or destroying it, I don't think they have any business talking about how they are going to provide any help.

Ranb

 

[Foolmewunz]

I think p. much everyone who knows what the KKK is knows that KKK members won't hesitate to use deadly force on black protestors who they think are trying to attack them.

I also think whoever wrote up that flyer was probably aware that most people already know the KKK's position Re: what the KKK plans to do if they think a black person is attacking them.

So I guess my question here is: what message was the KKK person who made that flyer really trying to impart?

Considering the rest of the stuff written on the flyer and also taking this KKK branch's violence-intimating tweets into account, I feel like the message here was probably something like "we are soon going to begin attacking protestors who we feel are looting white-owned businesses"

Hilited part: And don't forget "disrupting our daily lives". You don't want to have a car breakdown when these good old boys are on their way to a night of Jew-Baitin' down at the Bar-Bee-Cue, lemme tell ya. You disrupt their lives and they've gonna blow your terrorist ass away.


Yes,... seriously folks. It's the ******* Ku Klux Klan. If you meet these swell folks and tell them that their thoughts are reprehensible but you support their right to say them because you realize they're all a bunch of blow-hard bigots who won't do anything, they'll just ratchet up the rhetoric.. assuming they don't follow their group traditions and tie you to the back of a pickup truck and drag you for a mile or so. It's the Ku Klux Klan! Their defense isn't going to be "it's just words and thems my rights". Their defense is "So what??!! I have the right to shoot ******** to protect my way of life."

 

[angrysoba]

FMW, I have it on good authority that they are just a bunch of guys who like to play dress-up. Sure, they also have some daft views on race. Ha ha, those morons. But they're not dangerous; these morons are only exercising their right to tell those *whistle* terrorists that they will blow them away in specific situations. You cannot be telling me that this is a case of threatening race-based murder now can you?

 

[marplots]

Hilited part: And don't forget "disrupting our daily lives". You don't want to have a car breakdown when these good old boys are on their way to a night of Jew-Baitin' down at the Bar-Bee-Cue, lemme tell ya. You disrupt their lives and they've gonna blow your terrorist ass away.


Yes,... seriously folks. It's the ******* Ku Klux Klan. If you meet these swell folks and tell them that their thoughts are reprehensible but you support their right to say them because you realize they're all a bunch of blow-hard bigots who won't do anything, they'll just ratchet up the rhetoric.. assuming they don't follow their group traditions and tie you to the back of a pickup truck and drag you for a mile or so. It's the Ku Klux Klan! Their defense isn't going to be "it's just words and thems my rights". Their defense is "So what??!! I have the right to shoot ******** to protect my way of life."

It's not like they're Nazis you know.

 

[angrysoba]

It's not like they're Nazis you know.

The Nazis have not killed anyone in years. These days you will notice that people who goose-step around in SS uniforms and threaten to shoot Untermenschen are just loveable racist rogues in fancy dress exercising their legal rights to self-protection.

 

[varwoche]

What exactly is BS?

The way you wave off pertinent facts, and the asinine degree of reductionism you have foisted.

 

[autumn1971]

The law recognizes a speaker's audience as well as that audience's probable and expected reaction as part and parcel of what speech is free. This flyer was written for a racist audience, and can reasonably be interpreted as a call to violence by that audience. It's a matter for courts to decide. The response also probably broke a bunch of laws (got my lawyerin' hat on now,) and the people responsible should also be subject to the court system.

Wildcat is right about freedom to associate, but the reasonable-person standard as to what a particular bit of speech means is the bone of contention. I have exactly zero love for Anonymous, but if they are willing to actually face the consequences for what they did I can't but applaud them in this case. I thought that Foolmewunz was saying something like this, not that he would actually desire to be allowed to serve a sentence for some Anonymous douche. Might be wrong, it's happened before.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The law recognizes a speaker's audience as well as that audience's probable and expected reaction as part and parcel of what speech is free. This flyer was written for a racist audience, and can reasonably be interpreted as a call to violence by that audience. It's a matter for courts to decide. The response also probably broke a bunch of laws (got my lawyerin' hat on now,) and the people responsible should also be subject to the court system.

Wildcat is right about freedom to associate, but the reasonable-person standard as to what a particular bit of speech means is the bone of contention. I have exactly zero love for Anonymous, but if they are willing to actually face the consequences for what they did I can't but applaud them in this case. I thought that Foolmewunz was saying something like this, not that he would actually desire to be allowed to serve a sentence for some Anonymous douche. Might be wrong, it's happened before.

No, your assessment of my statement is accurate. I tend to think that I simply wouldn't have done it anonymously if I was involved in this. It was hyperbole or poetic license if you will. It was a device in making an argument.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Anyone who thinks a healthy sense of shame is not an essential part of everybody's toolkit has no business attempting to converse with adults.

Shame shouldn't be a tool for discerning evidenced assertions from unevidenced assertions. You're using shame to discourage discussion/differing opinions. It would be much healthier for you to actually show me why my reasoning is wrong (or whoever you think is "defending the freaking KKK").

I agree with that.

But I disagree with your characterization of defending the KKK as being shameful. Sometimes, what they do is wrong, horrible even, and they should be roundly criticized. That doesn't make it shameful to say that, in this case, this particular flyer is not obviously racist, offensive, etc.

I really don't think Teapot Cavalry has done anything the least bit shameful in this thread. Neither has Wildcat, although I'm not sure I agree with the extent to which he's willing to give the benefit of the doubt. Both have tried instead to be fair in judging those who they presumably find morally repugnant.

Thanks. I'm not giving them the benefit of doubt to act exclusively as stated on the poster. But I'm willing to entertain the idea, that they have the the same fears and desires as most people and a defense against looters/rioters is something I would imagine most people in the vicinity of danger have in mind. So there might be some truth in their stated goals on the flyer.

Therefore they're really no defending them on any level, except perhaps in some theoretical, hypothetical, alternate-universe sort of way that in my view has no practical value.

I myself am not particularly for seeing one thing or another absolutely evil all the time in every circumstances, and I welcome healthy debate on controversial/emotional issues. Your mileage may vary. Even if it has no practical value for you, I don't see calling it shameful very valuable or practical either. It almost seems you don't want anyone to discuss the topic.

But you're right that this is mainly just a skeptical exercise for me, I have no empathy for the KKK. I just see the flyer is being mischaracterized (if I'm reading it correctly) and apparently it's somehow an ethical transgression to point that out. I'm not okay with that.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

@Teapot Cavalry

Here's the flyer text.

.... 563.031 is a self-defense clause. They might want to note the section that says it's not pertinent if the person who does all the shooting started the confrontation. And it's also not a "property" clause. It's about personal threats to your safety.

Thanks for typing that out. But there was one last additional paragraph, however relevant that may be for the context.

You have been warned by the Ku Klux Klan. There will be consequences for your acts of violence against the peaceful, law-abiding citizens of Missouri.<snipped contact information for helping with setting up a neighborhood watch>

It kinda flat out says the consequences will be for the acts of violence against the citizens. Now you can read it as self-defense (which is implied in the context of the whole flyer), or you could interpret it as that they'll sneak into your house and kill you on your sleep as a consequence of being a protester on the street.

Note the distortions.... "terrorists masquerading as....".

It's a hyperbolic language. Why is that a problem in this context? They are seemingly talking about the violent looters and rioters.

Note the "sleeping giant". Well, sure, they mean the concerned citizens. Nonsense! They mean "the big bad klan is coming for you, ******!"

That's up for interpretation.

Note that they think this law gives them the okay to stand down, with guns, anyone "disrupting our daily lives".

I didn't read that from the flyer at all. They're certainly not okay that this disruption is happening and call it "terrorizing", whether that word applies or not is again up for debate.

Note that they're denying free speech ("threats of violence"), the very thing everyone here is up in arms about Anonymous doing.

I wasn't aware threats of violence is protected by free speech.

This is extra-judiciary interpretation of some of their "rights", without involvement of law enforcement or the courts. That is called "vigilantism" and it is against the law in all states. Extending "right to self-protection" state code to "right to send an armed team in to play cowboys and indians" is not codified.

The only place they claimed to be willing to use force is for self-defense and against acts of violence. Your vigilantism argument has no merit reading from the flyer alone.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

The way you wave off pertinent facts, and the asinine degree of reductionism you have foisted.

Sorry that you don't like my critical reading of a flyer and defending my point. However you've responded with nothing but hand-waving yourself.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Thanks for typing that out. But there was one last additional paragraph, however relevant that may be for the context.



It kinda flat out says the consequences will be for the acts of violence against the citizens. Now you can read it as self-defense (which is implied in the context of the whole flyer), or you could interpret it as that they'll sneak into your house and kill you on your sleep as a consequence of being a protester on the street.



It's a hyperbolic language. Why is that a problem in this context? They are seemingly talking about the violent looters and rioters.



That's up for interpretation.



I didn't read that from the flyer at all. They're certainly not okay that this disruption is happening and call it "terrorizing", whether that word applies or not is again up for debate.



I wasn't aware threats of violence is protected by free speech.



The only place they claimed to be willing to use force is for self-defense and against acts of violence. Your vigilantism argument has no merit reading from the flyer alone.

Sorry that you don't like my critical reading of a flyer and defending my point. However you've responded with nothing but hand-waving yourself.

Well, you're not here to be convinced, obviously. When you talk to people who've dealt with the Klan or their more-legal associates like the White Citizens Council(s) and refuse to recognize their well-know tactics and shorthand, then there's no convincing you.

Let's just Godwin the thread and assume you never figured out what "Final Solution" actually meant in that little fracas in Europe a few decades ago.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Well, you're not here to be convinced, obviously. When you talk to people who've dealt with the Klan or their more-legal associates like the White Citizens Council(s) and refuse to recognize their well-know tactics and shorthand, then there's no convincing you.

I think you're not really getting what I'm arguing. Nothing you've said is convincing that the flyer on its own is a call for vigilantism. It's your interpretation, obviously based on who its authors are, that paints it so, and whether I agree with that interpretation is irrelevant to my point. The fact that it can reasonably be interpreted multiple way is backing up my argument. The most benevolent interpretation is that it's exactly what it says it is - warning that the violent rioters will not be tolerated and any violence may be met with lethal force. Switch the author of the flyer to someone else and tell me again how that is calling for vigilantism.

Also, that fact that you (or anyone else here) might have had personal negative contact with these guys doesn't exactly paint you as a neutral and dispassionate arguer.

Also, you're assuming that I haven't dealt with them.

Let's just Godwin the thread and assume you never figured out what "Final Solution" actually meant in that little fracas in Europe a few decades ago.

I don't know why that was necessary.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I think you're not really getting what I'm arguing. Nothing you've said is convincing that the flyer on its own is a call for vigilantism. It's your interpretation, obviously based on who its authors are, that paints it so, and whether I agree with that interpretation is irrelevant to my point. The fact that it can reasonably be interpreted multiple way is backing up my argument. The most benevolent interpretation is that it's exactly what it says it is - warning that the violent rioters will not be tolerated and any violence may be met with lethal force. Switch the author of the flyer to someone else and tell me again how that is calling for vigilantism.

Also, that fact that you (or anyone else here) might have had personal negative contact with these guys doesn't exactly paint you as a neutral and dispassionate arguer.

Also, you're assuming that I haven't dealt with them.




I don't know why that was necessary.

Well, I could be wrong, so correct me. But I take your location at face value and I don't think the KKK is actually in Estonia.

And I do get what you're objecting to. That is (what you're objecting to) what I'm objecting to. You refuse to acknowledge that this sort of language is exactly how the Klan issued/issues threats and that the threats are very real.

You are willing to accept their obfuscation but not accept that people who understand them, their history, their motives.... would know exactly what they meant. ETA: And what the prior and subsequent communications from them stated.

Again, you've never answered.... how is it that you see that a group traveling 100 km, armed, to face-down demonstrators (who they lyingly call "terrorists") is in any way termed "self-defense". And that's what the law, as I mentioned, specifically does not provide for. You cannot go pick a fight, armed, and get someone to menace you and then shoot them. Even in Missouri they haven't codified that sort of behavior.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Well, I could be wrong, so correct me. But I take your location at face value and I don't think the KKK is actually in Estonia.

That's the thing with assumptions...

And I do get what you're objecting to. That is (what you're objecting to) what I'm objecting to. You refuse to acknowledge that this sort of language is exactly how the Klan issued/issues threats and that the threats are very real.

Hold on, how or where have I refused to acknowledge that? This isn't even touching my argument. My argument is that the flyer is reasonable and something I could get behind, if we divorce it from it's authors or I didn't know it was written by the KKK. In another words, there's nothing wrong with the flyer itself, it's the additional context of what we presume to be the motives of its authors. Knowing it's written by KKK, I'm highly suspicious it's as innocent as it seems on face value. In addition to that, I can see a potential argument to be made that even in the full knowledge of what KKK is and does, the poster flyer (dammit, keep saying "poster", prolly because it means the same thing in Estonian) doesn't violate any laws and the notion that its only reasonable interpretation is a call for vigilantism is debatable.

You are willing to accept their obfuscation but not accept that people who understand them, their history, their motives.... would know exactly what they meant. ETA: And what the prior and subsequent communications from them stated.

Again, you're assuming I'm ignorant. And again you're projecting on me that I "accept their obfuscation but not accept that people who understand them". This is not true.

Again, you've never answered.... how is it that you see that a group traveling 100 km, armed, to face-down demonstrators (who they lyingly call "terrorists") is in any way termed "self-defense".

This has nothing to do with the flyer.

And that's what the law, as I mentioned, specifically does not provide for. You cannot go pick a fight, armed, and get someone to menace you and then shoot them. Even in Missouri they haven't codified that sort of behavior.

No-one's disputing that.

 

[varwoche]

Sorry that you don't like my critical reading of a flyer and defending my point. However you've responded with nothing but hand-waving yourself.

Critical reading? In your fertile imagination.

Meanwhile you continue to ignore the pesky fact that these kkk nuts don't live in the area. That's why it's a blatant threat of vigilantism and not self defense, even if we ignore the things we know about the kkk.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Critical reading? In your fertile imagination.

Meanwhile you continue to ignore the pesky fact that these kkk nuts don't live in the area. That's why it's a blatant threat of vigilantism and not self defense, even if we ignore the things we know about the kkk.

I guess trying to read what I actually write is too much. Sorry to hear that.

 

[Foolmewunz]

That's the thing with assumptions...

You're kidding, right? A bunch of skinheads, maybe neo-nazis, pretending to be Klan.

Who, exactly are they targeting? You have like about zero black people, very few Arabs and a couple of thousand Jews. If this is what you think the Klan is, no wonder you think they're harmless. (Although I hear MC clubs in Europe have a pretty bad history, I believe it's been in-fighting over the drug trades and has nothing to do with attacking the citizenry at random.)

And just how did you "deal" with these Klan? Passed by their clubhouse?