• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Social Justice Warriors hack Klan Twitter account

WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

A group best identified as "Not From or In Ferguson", not just distributing leaflets that they were going to be there to "protect", but stating on line that they were going to go to Ferguson to "protect white businesses".

I think we've got to stretch the uber-skeptic credibility factor by quite a bit to not understand what the Klan was doing. Their circular from last week was only in the press last week; it had been circulated for about a week before it made the news, I believe.

Here's the pertinent text. Bolding Mine.

Attention to the terrorists masquerading as peaceful protesters!

You have awakened a sleeping giant. The good people of St. Louis County of all races, creeds and colors will not tolerate your threats of violence against our police officers, their families and our communities. We will not sit by and allow you to harm our families, communities, property nor disrupt our daily lives. Your right to freedom of speech does not give you the right to terrorize citizens.

We will use lethal force as provided under Missouri Law to defend ourselves. Defense of Justification Section 563.031
Click to expand...

Bolded part.... that could mean any protest or demonstration that requires someone to be late for a dentist appointment!

And 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.


The claim was that anonymous was responding to the KKK threatening lethal force against people for exercising their Constitutional rights, which is clearly not what they did. I have no interest in discussing the KKK's marketing strategy or defending their vile beliefs.

Just because a group or person has beliefs most people find abhorrent doesn't mean we're free to lie about them and pretend it's skepticism and critical thinking.
Click to expand...

No one's lying about them. Their words, prior to the reaction by Anonymous, are pretty clear. Do you really have trouble understanding what they're saying? I think that speaks more to bias than to critical thinking.
 
bookitty said:
They specifically used the phrase "lethal force." The rights in question are freedom of assembly. That is what they clearly did. Instead of going the "concerned citizens" route, they used the Klan letterhead to evoke the reputation of the Klan. A reputation earned by murdering black people without provocation. The only way you can read that letter as non-threatening is if you ignore the entire history of the Klan in that region.
Click to expand...
You do realize this is a critical thinking forum?
 
Foolmewunz said:
And 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.
Click to expand...
And that's why it's not a threat against people protesting.

If you think it is be sure to file a complaint with law enforcement. But you know and I know this is not a threat, and is in fact protected speech don't we?

Unlike many people here, I support free speech - even if it's speech I find abhorrent. Unlike Thailand the USA is a democracy, not a military dictatorship, and free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. Perhaps a military dictatorship under martial law is your idea of an ideal society, but it's certainly not mine. I'll gladly put up with fringe lunatics bleating for attention as the price of living in a free country. Obviously YMMV.
 
And here's an irrefutable fact: the only people mentioned in this thread who have recently engaged in illegal actions in order to restrict the free speech rights of others is... Anonymous.

Oh, the irony!

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
 
WildCat said:
And here's an irrefutable fact: the only people mentioned in this thread who have recently engaged in illegal actions in order to restrict the free speech rights of others is... Anonymous.

Oh, the irony!

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Click to expand...

Recently. Heh. You're describing a murdering terrorist group as being not so bad because they haven't killed anyone...lately. Just like Charles Manson.
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
And that's why it's not a threat against people protesting.
Click to expand...

No the threat to people protesting was when the warned them that they were going to come out in force and didn't like people protesting, e.g. disrupting their daily lives.

If you think it is be sure to file a complaint with law enforcement. But you know and I know this is not a threat, and is in fact protected speech don't we?
Click to expand...

I don't think we need to worry about law enforcement knowing about it, do you? You just put that in for dramatic effect because you have nothing to offer.

Unlike many people here, I support free speech - even if it's speech I find abhorrent. Unlike Thailand the USA is a democracy, not a military dictatorship, and free speech is a cornerstone of democracy. Perhaps a military dictatorship under martial law is your idea of an ideal society, but it's certainly not mine. I'll gladly put up with fringe lunatics bleating for attention as the price of living in a free country. Obviously YMMV.
Click to expand...

Tired and trite. I'm an American. You remember the Constitution. It's a great big world and I don't stop being an American. You've tried this crap before and scurried away after flinging your monkey poop at the wall.

Have you any evidence that I don't support free speech. I stated flat out that I support their right to expose themselves as miscreant scum. I also happen to support the free speech of others to point out that they are miscreant scum. The actions of Anonymous are not about free speech. They are about a struggle that's been going on too long. Letting these snakes hide under their rocks is in no way an act of protecting free speech. When they stand up at the courthouse and have their say as citizens, I'm all for them having the right to do so. When they do it anonymously with thinly veiled threats, then I'm in favor of whatever is needed to stop them.

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.
 
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!"

When he told me this I remarked that he sounded like an awfully nice gentlemen to pay the shopkeeper a compliment like that, and also to be anxious for the well-being of his shop.

Yet the shopkeeper looked at me as though I had just announced I had three buttocks. He insisted that the nice Yakuza man had not offered a compliment at all.

"My good man," I said to him, "I should think I know the meaning of the words 'That's a real nice shop you go there!'"

But the shopkeeper would have none of it. In fact, his response was quite vehement, "Are you so kind of moron!" He yelled at me. "Are you naiive or disingenuous? Of course it's a form of intimidation. A threat! An attempt at extortion! Only a fool would think otherwise!"

"I dare say you have evidence to this effect!" I said and took a puff from my pipe.

"Evidence!? That the Yakuza are involved with extortion and intimidation!?"

"Ah," Says I adjusting my deerstalker hat and smirking at the man's folly, "you have no evidence that this was not a mere compliment! I see no threatening language at all. Good day to you sir!"

Critical thinking won the day again!
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
I can still mention that it's ridiculous to use it that way, even knowing that people do, can't I ?

And appeal to tradition, really ?
Click to expand...
You're doing the same, just appealing to a previous tradition and insisting that's the right one. ;)

The Grand Wizard said:
But you, you're hiding behind pathetic masks, trying your best to disable to the Klan, which will never happen.
Click to expand...
Says the leader of a club that dresses up like Scooby Doo ghosts to stay anonymous... where's that irony emoticon when you need it?
 
Soapy Sam said:
The RC church has recently accepted Darwinism and the Big Bang. That sort of progressive?Remember that this does not necessarily make you right.
Click to expand...

If by 50 years ago counts as recent, then you have a point with Evolution. It was a Catholic Priest who was one of theorists who helped lay the foundation for the Big Bang 70 years ago.
 
Unabogie said:
Recently. Heh. You're describing a murdering terrorist group as being not so bad because they haven't killed anyone...lately. Just like Charles Manson.
Click to expand...
You fail because Charles Manson is still Charles Manson. This isn't the same KKK as in the past, it's far more splintered, has exponentially fewer members, and is far less powerful Even the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't think they are any threat:
But Mark Potok, senior fellow at Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) says that the current cyber war between hate and anti-hate groups playing-out over the Ferguson case will not end in violence when a verdict is reached, but pause somewhere between sturm und drang to simply changing venues to the next hate hot spot.

...Therefore, Potok says that the ‘lethal force’ threat is most likely a publicity stunt driven by the splintering of the KKK in over the past two decades which has left a pronounced lack of ability to muster force.

“Two guys in hoods or maybe a couple of skinhead may show up and take a selfie to post online and show ‘I was there!’ but it’s not what it once was in terms of being a threat,” Potok says.

According to Potok that’s because, “The problem is that there is not one Klan anymore. There are about 27 different Klan groups always fighting amongst themselves for the spotlight and supremacy.”
Click to expand...
In fact other KKK groups accuse the guy who put that out of being secretly Jewish... :rolleyes:

Now, if you have evidence that the SPLC and others should be concerned about please present it. So far all you've done is claim that because a few of the 7 people left in the Missouri KKK showed up at a pro-Wilson rally therefore everyone who supports Wilson is a racist and probably a KKK member as well. Logic fail.
 
Foolmewunz said:
No the threat to people protesting was when the warned them that they were going to come out in force and didn't like people protesting, e.g. disrupting their daily lives.
Click to expand...
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.

Foolmewunz said:
I don't think we need to worry about law enforcement knowing about it, do you? You just put that in for dramatic effect because you have nothing to offer.
Click to expand...
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.

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


Foolmewunz said:
Tired and trite. I'm an American. You remember the Constitution. It's a great big world and I don't stop being an American. You've tried this crap before and scurried away after flinging your monkey poop at the wall.
Click to expand...
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.

Foolmewunz said:
Have you any evidence that I don't support free speech.
Click to expand...
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.

Foolmewunz said:
I stated flat out that I support their right to expose themselves as miscreant scum. I also happen to support the free speech of others to point out that they are miscreant scum. The actions of Anonymous are not about free speech. They are about a struggle that's been going on too long. Letting these snakes hide under their rocks is in no way an act of protecting free speech. When they stand up at the courthouse and have their say as citizens, I'm all for them having the right to do so. When they do it anonymously with thinly veiled threats, then I'm in favor of whatever is needed to stop them.
Click to expand...
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.

From the same article quoted earlier:
According to Dr. Herbert Nieburg, psychologist with SE Counseling Associates in Pawcatuck, Conn., in a phone interview, anonymous may have accidentally found the Klan’s Kryptonite but is using it all wrong.

“That’s [unmasking is] unlikely to have an impact on the KKK because the’ve never been concerned with being ‘unmasked,’ ” he says. “Their hoods have never been about others knowing their identity.”
Click to expand...


Foolmewunz said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom