Social Justice Warriors hack Klan Twitter account

[phiwum]

It's an order of magnitude more than "sometimes what they do is wrong." The KKK's whole raison d'être is repugnant. The very existence of the KKK is shameful and an affront to human decency. 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. And I've having a very difficult time understanding why that isn't blindingly obvious to any reasonable and rational thinker.

I should say that, when I write, "sometimes what they do is wrong," I mean "sometimes" in the usual logical sense: there is at least one time that they have done something wrong. I didn't mean to suggest that it is rare that the KKK is morally on the wrong side.

Now, what is obvious to this allegedly rational thinker is this: when someone does wrong, no matter who it is, one shouldn't deny it. And when someone hasn't done wrong (or when it's not obvious that they've done wrong) that they've been accused of, no matter who it is, it is good to say the accusation is unproved. Even if the person or group is in many ways and on many occasions truly horrible.

Seems to me that's what is going on here.

 

[varwoche]

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

Pay no attention to context. Any and everything the kkk says will be taken at face value.

Why stop there? Maybe next we can analyze the kkk's use of prepositions and adverbs.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

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

The No True Klansman fallacy? Are you a KKK expert? What gave it away they are fakes?

Who, exactly are they targeting?

What does it matter?

You have like about zero black people, very few Arabs and a couple of thousand Jews.

Those zero black people might be offended. Plus we have foreign students and tourists. I think even one harassed non-white is a one too many.

It seems your argument is that they're not real klansmen ETA: or they don't count if they don't have a certain amount of people to harass.

If this is what you think the Klan is, no wonder you think they're harmless.

I think they're harmless?
Why the hostility and dishonesty from you? Have I offended you?

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

What does it matter?

ETA2: @Foolmewunz, I see you have also ignored the meat of my post, where I asked where or how have I refused to acknowledge what you claimed I did and went on to explain my actual position.

Pay no attention to context. Any and everything the kkk says will be taken at face value.

Why stop there? Maybe next we can analyze the kkk's use of prepositions and adverbs.

As I said, try reading what I'm actually posting, not what you wish I were.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The No True Klansman fallacy? Are you a KKK expert? What gave it away they are fakes?

Uh, no. This is Baltic Cosplay. A "no true Scotsman" does not involve an Australian aboriginal in a kilt claiming his boomerang is really a Claymore. You have a bunch of guys dressing up like Ku Klux Klanners and adopting the name because it looks better on their jackets than "Northern Bigots MC".

What does it matter?

Because hate groups gotta hate. You do understand why the KKK was founded and what it stands for, right? It's a hate group. The gotta hate someone. We hate the Hell's Angels is a good slogan for an outlaw motorcycle club, but not much in the Let's Beat Up Downtrodden Minorities and Mud People category.

Those zero black people might be offended. Plus we have foreign students and tourists. I think even one harassed non-white is a one too many.

It seems your argument is that they're not real klansmen ETA: or they don't count if they don't have a certain amount of people to harass.

No, my argument is that it's a bunch of miscreants playing Dress-Up. You're the one who offered up your experience with "The Klan" as proof that you know more about the subject than I assumed. Your link was even wrapped in the word "assume".

I think they're harmless?
Why the hostility and dishonesty from you? Have I offended you?

Yes, you've offended me. I don't give a rat's ass for this Uber-Skeptic nonsense about looking at their statement and solely their statement and accepting the words and only the words at face value. Nor do I cotton to the "I could get behind that statement" concept when the group in question is the Ku Klux Klan, a group that has a history of violence and intimidation through whatever means, legal or extra-legal. There's nothing wrong with emotion in a debate. I'm quite glad I feel some about issues like this.

You may have missed a post above. I was raised in Louisiana. My mom was a ******-lover Jew and was run out of a lucrative job and thus out of town by the White Citizens Council, the warm fuzzy legal face of the Klan. I spent my childhood and early teens doing voter registration and sit-ins. And you say you can get behind their statement as it stands?
I'm telling you that people who know them and their history have no trouble whatsoever discerning the meaning of their words. And you keep telling me the Estonian Skeptic Version.

Get it?

What does it matter?

I don't know. Why did you offer up your photo as counter-argument to my point that if you'd ever dealt with the Klan, you might think differently. You posted a picture (likely available on the internet) of a motorcycle club's clubhouse.

ETA2: @Foolmewunz, I see you have also ignored the meat of my post, where I asked where or how have I refused to acknowledge what you claimed I did and went on to explain my actual position.

You've simply repeated your position over and over. "Take the literal meanings of the words,... what's wrong with that?" (Those are "paraphrase" quotation marks, not "direct quote" quotation marks.) And a number of us have pointed out to you that the specific words used are loaded and have meanings.... to fellow bigots who will get the wink-wink-nudge-nudge, and to black people and protesters who will surely get the threat being made.

You have redefined vigilantism to suit your purposes and insist on defending the fact that their threats are not vigilantism. They are. Everyone who knows the history and context knows they are. And you have repeatedly ignored the fact that you cannot claim "self-defense" if you get a posse together and travel to a "not my own community" to "defend" (read: face-down) against protesters, who you deem "terrorists" because your brain doesn't work from being crammed into that pointy hood for so many years.

As I said, try reading what I'm actually posting, not what you wish I were.

You see, that's the problem. We have read what you posted. You're doing the No True Skeptic floor routine, tying yourself into intellectual knots trying to be fair to the point of being unreasonably fair. It's attractive to some people. I find it trite, pedantic and annoying. You took a stand based on not understanding the background and now you're defending it. Good luck with that. This isn't "last post wins".

 

[TeapotCavalry]

@Foolmewunz

I see you're too emotional to have a reasonable discussion about this. Carry on then.

 

[Foolmewunz]

@Foolmewunz

I see you're too emotional to have a reasonable discussion about this. Carry on then.

Thanks, but I don't actually need your permission. Nor do I believe you really want to discuss this. You wanted to play at "Mr. Spock" and out-logic everyone but your logic failed because it required that you believe lies.

There is a problem with Sea Lioning (thanks for that, Colander). "Why don't we sit back and view this intellectually and non-emotionally?", is a pile of crap.

One can be emotional and not be illogical. I've refuted every point you've made. I've merely done so with a touch of the old drama llama, for effect.

The end result of this is that you said you didn't have any problem with their statement and when people pointed out to you, almost line by line, what was really in their statement, you doubled-down and insisted that you understood better than those of us who've dealt with these people in our lives. You then tried to offer up your "experiences" with a bunch of drug-dealing miscreants as comparison to people who've actually seen the Klan's horrible racist terrorism up close and uncomfortable.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

@Foolmewunz

I see you're too emotional to have a reasonable discussion about this. Carry on then.

Oh, what a ******** non sequiter. If you would rather play semantic games, just admit it, don't pretend that he diverted this conversation.

 

[varwoche]

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

How about you drop the posturing and address certain facts that you have so far avoided?

The KKK group is located in Leadwood, 81 miles from Ferguson. How is it that their threat of vigilante action has anything to do with self defense?

Oh wait, never mind, maybe the KKK was planning to go Xmas shopping in Ferguson. Right? Gee whiz, now I'm a super skeptic too!

 

[Stellafane]

I do have to admit to finding a certain amusement in watching people who elsewhere might derisively condemn so-called "Social Justice Warriors" suddenly reverse course and themselves demand social justice for...the KKK!! I guess that just supports my contention that we're all SJW's in our way, only some of us get worked up over the fight against sexism, racism, homophobia etc. while other take up arms in support of...other stuff.

 

[marplots]

I do have to admit to finding a certain amusement in watching people who elsewhere might derisively condemn so-called "Social Justice Warriors" suddenly reverse course and themselves demand social justice for...the KKK!! I guess that just supports my contention that we're all SJW's in our way, only some of us get worked up over the fight against sexism, racism, homophobia etc. while other take up arms in support of...other stuff.

It is probably time for another SJW video: "10 hours of walking in New York dressed as a Klansman."

 

[Foolmewunz]

It is probably time for another SJW video: "10 hours of walking in New York dressed as a Klansman."

I wouldn't want to stake my skeptic and New York City street cred on it, but unfortunately, the Klansman would get precisely the footage he's looking for.... presuming they video the subway ride to 125th and Lexington, he would be stomped before he got off the train.

It'd be more like "10 minutes of Walking in New York Dressed as a Klansman and 10 Hours of Waiting for Attention at Columbia Presbyterian Emergency".


And before our defenders of free speech come in and make their bi-monthly accusation that my post(s) is(are) neo-racism...., mandatory disclaimer.... I am against violence. I'm just relating the reality of (one of) my home town(s).

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Nor do I believe you really want to discuss this.

I've been civil and non-hostile, while you've been increasingly confrontational, seemingly because I dare to have an opinion dissimilar to yours. I think it's you who's not really interested in a discussion.

You wanted to play at "Mr. Spock" and out-logic everyone but your logic failed because it required that you believe lies.

I've asked you to show me where I say or do the things you claim I say or do before. No response. Another claim here that I "believe lies". I suppose I get no evidence for that claim either.

And you haven't showed me how my logic failed. That relies on your ability and willingness to actually recognize what my claim is.

There is a problem with Sea Lioning (thanks for that, Colander). "Why don't we sit back and view this intellectually and non-emotionally?", is a pile of crap.

I find that laughable. You really find fault with looking at things intellectually and non-emotionally? Might I suggest you to look at the name of the forum?

One can be emotional and not be illogical.

One can. But you on the other hand are attacking things I've not said and pretending as if those are my argument and beliefs. You've ignoring my requests to clarify and show me where I'm saying those things, and then take offense that I dare to keep defending my argument. You've, at least how I perceived it, mocked my country as if whatever goes on there is insignificant and not really genuine. You're digging up old stuff from unrelated thread (all the paraphrasing and quotation stuff). It's quite obvious you're emotional to the degree you're not thinking this clearly, you're attacking me rather than my argument.

I've refuted every point you've made. I've merely done so with a touch of the old drama llama, for effect.

Honestly, I don't think you understand what my position is, despite me explicitly stating that in my previous posts. phiwum seemed to get it. What's so difficult in understanding it? I've stated it again, for clarity, in my post #177.

The end result of this is that you said you didn't have any problem with their statement and when people pointed out to you, almost line by line, what was really in their statement,

What was really in the statement is what was in the statement from the beginning, line by line. No invisible ink there. The perceived intent and context is a separate issue. You're having hard time distinguishing presumed motives of the authors from the text itself. I've made that distinction before, it was part of my argument. Is there any particular reason you're not understanding this?

you doubled-down and insisted that you understood better than those of us who've dealt with these people in our lives.

You might want to show me that quote. This is a blatant lie.

You then tried to offer up your "experiences"

Another lie. You assumed there's no KKK in Estonia and that I have zero experience with them. The first I showed is false. The second I've not addressed apart from pointing out it's your unevidenced assumption.

with a bunch of drug-dealing miscreants

I'm curious how you know who they are or what they do? You say they're "skinheads, maybe neo-nazis, pretending to be Klan", "Baltic Cosplay", "bunch of miscreants playing Dress-Up", "bunch of drug-dealing miscreants". I mean, it's perfectly fine to speculate, but you're asserting with conviction that they're not klansmen.

As is customary in this forum, I must ask you for evidence for these claims. What's your sources or expertise?

as comparison to people who've actually seen the Klan's horrible racist terrorism up close and uncomfortable.

I can only think this is more of the emotional part of your supposedly emotional-but-not-illogical post. I don't find it appropriate that you tell me what I've experienced, as you're doing assuming things in the quoted sentence.

TL;DR:

I don't give a rat's ass for this Uber-Skeptic nonsense about looking at their statement and solely their statement and accepting the words and only the words at face value.

Then we have nothing to talk about, because that was precisely what I AM talking about. If you're not interested, move on, don't straw man me. You failed to recognize what my argument is about and painted me as some kind of a KKK apologist. That's not only not true, it's offensive. I suggest you not to concentrate on me and my personal history unless that's relevant to the argument. An argument which you don't care for, so this issue should be settled.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Oh, what a ******** non sequiter. If you would rather play semantic games, just admit it, don't pretend that he diverted this conversation.

Diverted? How am I pretending that? I said, quite clearly, that he's too emotional for this topic, evidenced from the fact that he's concentrating on strawmen and irrelevancies such as me and my country. He's not engaging the argument, but the arguer.

How about you drop the posturing and address certain facts that you have so far avoided?

What have I avoided?

The KKK group is located in Leadwood, 81 miles from Ferguson. How is it that their threat of vigilante action has anything to do with self defense?

How about you address my actual argument? I'm not going to entertain you with masquerading as your made up straw man.

Oh wait, never mind, maybe the KKK was planning to go Xmas shopping in Ferguson. Right? Gee whiz, now I'm a super skeptic too!

You sure are! Have a cookie.

I do have to admit to finding a certain amusement in watching people who elsewhere might derisively condemn so-called "Social Justice Warriors" suddenly reverse course and themselves demand social justice for...the KKK!! I guess that just supports my contention that we're all SJW's in our way, only some of us get worked up over the fight against sexism, racism, homophobia etc. while other take up arms in support of...other stuff.

If that was alluding to me, I hope you realize how ridiculous you sounded saying it.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Then we have nothing to talk about....

There ya go.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

There ya go.

Shake hands and make peace?

I really don't think you'd disagree with my argument, which I've admitted before was just for skeptical exercise. I'm not defending the KKK nor the contextual reading of the flyer.

 

[colander]

What was really in the statement is what was in the statement from the beginning, line by line. No invisible ink there. The perceived intent and context is a separate issue. You're having hard time distinguishing presumed motives of the authors from the text itself. I've made that distinction before, it was part of my argument. Is there any particular reason you're not understanding this?

I'm having a really hard time understanding why you figure that disregarding the context surrounding a communique is in any way a logical or rational way of figuring out what we should consider it to mean. You seem to be advocating the use of some sort of postmodernist analytical critique of an ominous flyer the KKK designed and distributed last month. While that sort of analysis has its place in a literature class, it's not a very useful way of getting a handle on the real-world contemporary significance of any particular text.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why you figure that disregarding the context surrounding a communique is in any way a logical or rational way of figuring out what we should consider it to mean.

Perhaps because I have not stated this is what we should consider it to mean.

You seem to be advocating the use of some sort of postmodernist analytical critique

I think you have an imaginative mind.

While that sort of analysis has its place in a literature class, it's not a very useful way of getting a handle on the real-world contemporary significance of any particular text.

Certainly.