not helping lemmy’s extremist-leaning reputation guys
Mod here. This is pretty cut and dry:
No doxxing or promoting violence. Ever.
Please report any and all instances of such behavior so it can be promptly removed.
This thread is now locked.
If it’s not right for them, it’s not right for us. I understand there are times when a person’s opinions and character deserve harsh criticism, but providing information that may result in real-world violence is different.
I don’t care about their safety anymore. They don’t care about mine. What’s that phrase they like to regurgitate? FAFO?
Man, some of the takes here make me sad. Thanks to those who upvoted the idea that ethics don’t change when someone is sure they’re right in changing them “this time”. I want to be clear - I’m not painting all or even most Lemmy users with this brush. However, what I’m seeing lately is such a disconnect to me:
- “Woke snowflakes aren’t people” “Women are property” “Hamas (aka all Palestinians) aren’t people” = outrage at the dehumanization (very rightfully so).
- But then: “Trump voters are Nazis and Nazis aren’t people” “The people who didn’t vote or voted 3rd party are just as bad as them” = upvotes, “they don’t deserve rights” and “when they suffer it will be justice” comments. (To reiterate, I’m not saying everyone here, but enough to be worrying.)
This election broke people, and I really don’t like how readily some who claim to be ethical are supporting what seems to me to be hate speech by way of dehumanization. If Trump had lost and his followers were saying similar things but pointed it at “woke leftists” or “communists”, you all would be incredibly upset (rightfully so). Even though the Trumpers saying those things would truly think they were saving their country, the way some people here seem to think they are.
The moment you see people who voted for Harris assaulting third-party voters, you let me know. Some of the takes are over the top, but where they’re coming from is completely understandable. Dehumanization is an attempt to rationalize away empathy to prevent guilt and trauma from what people think is the fight to come.
The moral high road is littered with the corpses of people who tried to fight fair. In self-defense, there are 2 rules: a battle not fought is a battle won, and, if you have to hurt a man, hurt him so bad that you need never fear his vengeance.
If doxxing a couple of assholes like this is enough to intimidate the bigots who are now emboldened to attack and rape people and save even a few lives, then it’s worth it - we’ve solved things with rule number one. If it doesn’t stop them, then fyi: the back of the eye socket is thin enough to push through with your thumb and into the brain behind it. There’s no such thing as “fighting dirty” when it comes to survival. There’s no room for mercy when somebody is trying to kill you, and these people have tried before and say that they’re going to try again.
We all hope it doesn’t come to that, but it is better to be prepared and not need it than to wish you had it when the jackboots are stomping on you. And when somebody has told you who they are, you believe them. If it quacks like a Nazi, swims like a Nazi, and goose-steps like a Nazi, then it ain’t a duck.
Ok, I believe you are sincere and appreciate the perspective. There’s a difference between doxing Nick Fuentes, and doxing every trump voter. (In my opinion)
Do you believe violence can ever be considered justified? If you are a pure dogmatic pacifist, I believe your position is logically consistent.
If not: what circumstances can justify violence? Can the police or the military act within morality? Is justice defined by law or outcome?
If the state is unable or unwilling to protect a marginalized group of people, at what point does it become moral to defend themselves?
Well, thanks for talking to me in good faith. I’m trying to make good faith arguments. It’s really difficult to give a hard line about where violence is just because I’m sure ambiguity exists.
- Talking about the military: a declaration of civil war to save the country is a lot different than “his house is flammable” or “it would be a real shame if he was dealt with at night” which are exactly the kinds of things being said about Fuentes right now, on Lemmy. He’s undeniably a piece of shit, but vigilante killing isn’t alright. There are good reasons why soldiers killing others in the context of anti-fascist formal war would be treated differently than mob justice. If soldiers took it upon themselves to kill Fuentes without a declaration of civil war or something similarly legal, that would just be a crime or deployment of troops against American citizens. E.g. Lincoln didn’t tell Northerners to head South and start indiscriminately killing to end slavery, it was a war with rules like the chance to surrender, etc.
- Things like actual rape and murder should merit at least an attempt at justice within the bounds of law. And as far as I know, Fuentes hasn’t done either - people right now want him dead because of his words. As an example, people didn’t kill the January 6 protesters - they got put through the legal system and were punished. Would you argue that it would have been a proud and just moment in US history if those hundreds of rioters should have been identified and murdered back in 2021, by other civilians, without trial? I know Trump might release them - does that possibility mean they should have been murdered by a counter mob back then? The J6ers weren’t just talking like Fuentes either, they straight up attempted a coup.
- Israelis regularly kill non-violent Palestinians in the West Bank. They put Palestinians, including children, into prison without charges or trial, and some of them end up raped and tortured. It’s called administrative detention and it’s done because “the threat must be contained”. It’s also an enormous injustice. I feel the same way about extrajudicial killings of civilians, even if I think they’re terrible people. I wouldn’t support Ukrainian forces slaughtering Russian towns that could be proven to support Putin, even though I hate Putin.
- It’s the election loss that seems to be fuelling the rapid escalation of rhetoric here on Lemmy. I saw lots of bullying before, but not many people calling for actual killing. Why is it that the election loss, alone because nothing else has happened yet, made vigilantism ethical?
If it’s not right for them, it’s not right for us
Doxing, say, women who’ve had abortions or trans people so they can be imprisoned or killed by 3%ers is just fundementally different than doxing a murderous fascist in order to protect people’s lives.
Outcome matters.
It’s OK if I do it.
Unbelievable.
Yes, it is okay if you do it, as long as it’s to a Nazi
That’s a term that has lost all meaning, thanks to people like you.
Nick Fuentes is literally an unabashed neonazi lmao
Huh. I thought you were using “nazi” the way the other side uses “fake news”.
I can’t believe my comment got removed for saying that it’s a good thing when Nazis get doxxed
Yes, actually, there’s no obligation to extend the protections of the social contract to those actively attempting to destroy it.
Why are you so invested in the rights of Nazis? They’re not people
Self defense isn’t murder.
When it gets into preemptive self defense…probably murder? But what if you are reasonably sure it will be too late to defend yourself later? Do you let yourself or those you love die? But people can weaponize that line of thinking in bad faith, they murder someone and say it was self defense because the other guy was definitely gonna do it. It seems too awful to allow, and yet for some people, it might be the only thing that stops them from getting killed. Clearly nobody should be expected to wait until the knife is in their neck to say, “well, at least I waited long enough to make sure I should have already done something”.
A whole line of thinking that can be prevented by nazis not openly threatening rape, which is the real headline here.
You literally refuse to understand the reasoning and will only see this at surface value. Things are approaching the level of fucked that can only be fixed with a come to Jesus moment (so to speak). If you can’t or won’t understand what is actually at stake and how dire things are, just do nothing on the sidelines and see how long it is before your starts to seem a LOT smaller than you thought it was.
It’s you who refuse to understand. You don’t tolerate a Nazi. I think the next several months will hopefully be eye opening for people like you (one can hope).
I’m saying the same thing you are. The only good nazi is one who has been giving a one-way ticket, leaving existence.
No, I’m saying the same thing you are!
I’m going down in flames with you if need be. Wrong is wrong.
- Martin Luther King Jr. “The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate…”
I can see scenarios where violence becomes necessary, but not as vigilantes and it should be at the very end of the list.
They are literally gathering lists of outgroups and minorities right now. Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.
deleted by creator
Who? I’m not American if that helps.
No worries, I’m Canadian and I had to look it up. Nick Fuentes is one of the online bastards preaching open hatred. “Nicholas Joseph Fuentes (born August 18, 1998) is an American far-right political pundit and live streamer who promotes white supremacist, misogynistic, and antisemitic views.” Apparently he’s so vile even other Republicans are torn about associations with him - more in that article.
white supremacist named Nicholas Joseph Fuentes
There’s just no way the right don’t see the irony.
They don’t. They’re genuinely stupid.
Is he the guy that came up with the phrase, “Your body, my choice”?
I don’t know if he coined the phrase, but he’s one of the first. “Nick Fuentes, an influential white nationalist podcaster, appears to be one of the early instigators in promoting the phrase on November 5. His X post, “Your body, my choice. Forever.” has since received 35 million views.”
He’s also the guy that said having sex with women is gay. Real charmer, that one
lol, He’s 27? Who listen to this asshat?
Tiny dicked incels with zero social skills who think women are property. AKA fascists.
Yes, Every nonAmerican helps just a little. Thank you.
Actual fascists mirroring Hitler’s rise to power prior to WW2, using the same rhetoric of violence toward out-groups, a tyrant failing to be prosecuted under the law even though he was convicted of 34 felonies, going through the entire system with nothing to show for it, and you dumb fucking “centrists” still feel like things can be fixed through the utterly broken fucking system we’ve created.
Get your heads out of your fucking asses.
Okay but like you still shouldn’t dox people?
Like, I get it, we’re in a really bad spot right now. But publishing someone’s information on the internet is, if anything, just going to make them a martyr to those that want to opress.
Nazis aren’t people
Don’t dehumanize any group of people and imply violence against them is ok.
I think I’m in the wrong place
You are correct. That’s what Nazis do. Don’t sink to their level.
Amen. Defy the urge to race to the bottom, even if it’s borne out of genuine, understandable grief and frustration.
Violence against self-identified Nazis is 100% ok. We had a whole big war like 100 years ago about this
If you’re in the wrong place, I’m here with you. There are ways to deal with people that aren’t dehumanization and vigilante mob justice. We’re 4 days past the election. I think we need to see if society can pull through and avert disaster with less escalation and violence.
E.g. there are a lot of legal challenges being prepared for the militarized internment camps that Trump campaigned on. Also, the things he promised are simply outside the logistical scope of agencies to provide. “For one, it’s entirely impractical from an operational standpoint. The law enforcement capacity needed to both secure the border and carry out mass raids in the interior of the US simply does not exist.”
Maybe things will get bad enough in the US to justify a civil war or something similar. It’s happened before (although even then it wasn’t just whoever felt violent killing each other - it was war with rules). Or maybe things like legal challenges, impossible scope, and half the nation’s disapproval will keep it from getting to that point. I’d like to keep extrajudicial violence off the table until we know.
Are you really arguing we should all be nicer to literal Nazis? That’s the group we are talking about.
It’s ok to dox fascists in order to combat fascism. You lose the right to privacy when you actively work towards brutalizing, enslaving and killing others.
His address is public domain. I’m sure he has an unlisted number, so that would be a violation of privacy.
My guy let me spell it out for you, you fucking dumbass.
LITERAL NAZIS CAN ROT IN HELL. That’s it. You afford them nothing.
No. You’re wrong. You’re absolutely wrong in this instance and you need to stop. Do not protect nazis. Ever. Full stop.
If you’re not going to help then at least for the love of fucking god get out of the way.
deleted by creator
Telling other people to commit premeditated murder is, and it’s all over this thread + the original (which I think was taken down).
deleted by creator
The Proud Boys and other militias believe the exact same thing, just swap anti-fascist for anti-traitors who are “the enemy within”. You are proving each other’s point, two sets of extremists advocating for whatever it takes, with both POSITIVE they’re doing the right thing.
Fascists: I want systemic violence against anyone that isn’t a white cis het man.
Leftists: I want violence against people who advocate for systemic violence against marginalised groups.
Absolutely undistinguishable :p
Strawman. Yeah, there are differences. It’s not like I support people like Fuentes. I’ve posted several times about him and other hateful people being a reprehensible bastard. For months I posted anti-Trump. But in many ways that matter there are serious similarities or even exact mirrors between groups. Both:
-
I magically know who should die so I’m right. I’m righteously saving my country, so I don’t need checks and balances or the mandate of the population.
-
I don’t care if it escalates national violence, even starts a war and gets others killed - I have the right to make the choice that forces consequences on others.
-
Good people are going to cheer, bad people are going to live in fear and give up their wicked ways, and I’m going to be a hero.
-
Abandon peaceful, legal options. It doesn’t matter if multiple challenges to Trump are happening at all levels of government, my way is better and we don’t even need to wait.
-
I’m powerful enough/my side is that the bad guys will die and we’ll win. I’m so scary and capable, you don’t even know.
-
I’m actually going to sit on my ass posting “fuck them” and telling other people to kill for me because it makes me feel good. Just daily indulgence in the worst brand of power fantasies.
For that last one: The doxing thread would have been hilarious if it wasn’t disgusting before it got taken down. People were all “they’re not near me” and “I hope someone else does it”. Buddy, they’re the guys who pick fights at bars and stall until the bouncer arrives then tell everyone else, “You’re lucky I was held back”. If I was wrong they’d be doing something (and ruining/ending a lot of lives in the process), not talking BS on Lemmy. I’m not telling people to actually act, it should be incredibly obvious I’m saying not to. I’m also saying I don’t need to worry about 99.9% of the big tough internet men doing so. The murder fetishists in this thread are clearly all hoping if the message reaches thousands, one mentally unstable murderer will actually act so they can cheer from the bleachers without consequences.
-
Not on the side of killing people here but one side wants to kill minorities and other groups while the other wants to kill people who want to kill minorities.
Would you say painting WWII Nazis as evil and fighting a war against them is the same as them invading Poland to subjugate the natives?
one side wants to kill minorities and other groups while the other wants to kill people who want to kill minorities.
A 2nd response after thinking about that part of your question: Both sides want to kill millions, without trial, on the basis of perceived danger. There’s no moral high ground. No rules of war, no official oversight, just civilians murdering their countrymen in large numbers. Demands that, if acted upon, will escalate into enormous bloodshed without giving less destructive, more legal barriers a chance. The people pushing violence are unrepentantly promoting the idea that “if they want to kill then we’ll kill them first”.
Would you say painting WWII Nazis as evil and fighting a war against them is the same as them invading Poland to subjugate the natives?
I wouldn’t say that, but I understand why you’d ask. The Nazis weren’t opposed by sending any civilian angry enough into Germany to shoot civilians they thought were fascists. When Germany invaded Poland, other countries formally declared war (although it took several months before they actually engaged in combat.) In another comment I wrote why I think formal war with rules of war is different than vigilante killing. In a 2nd, I said that if it comes down to army vs. army civil war I’d say fight hard. In yet another, I told someone they were trying to be the WW2 Allies without the army or mandate.
I also wrote about the likely consequence of vigilante killings including handing Trump and the extreme right all the excuses they could ever want, sabotaging legitimate efforts opposing/delaying Trump by organizations like the Pentagon and state governments, and getting their lives ended/ruined. Some folks are trying to equate promoting assassinations with the Allies’ fight against the Axis, and it’s just not the same in characteristics or consequence. Please also bear in mind the killings they are targeted at podcasters and unknown civilians with the assumption that killing these “ground level” people will sort things out.
Ah, so you aren’t opposed to killing fascists, you just want it to be done on the orders of a military.
Yes if it comes to that, and kept bounded by rules of war. Accepting surrender, treatment of POWs, avoiding civilian casualties, rules of engagement and so on. The US isn’t there yet IMO, by which I mean a significant % of people willing to leave their lives behind to fight other Americans. There are serious legal and administrative attempts being made to block the worst of Trump’s policies. But if the US does in fact have a civil war, I am cheering for those opposing fascists. I don’t know how a 43-year-old Canadian could contribute, but I’d be willing to at minimum donate to things like humanitarian aid for sure.
I didn’t tell anybody to commit murder. I’m just watching hopefully.
Ok, I have those thoughts sometimes too, especially when I’m angry and hopeless. I usually cut them off because ultimately I don’t think I have the right to kill people outside of the context of a war etc. But there’s nothing illegal about thinking. Clarence Darrow: “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure".
A lot of folks are calling for actual violence though. It’s all over the thread. Incitement is different than just wishing Trump and his cronies would croak.
I am genuinely curious why do you think that you have a right to kill someone in war but not outside of it. Like what are the main differences there (unless you are using law as a basis for this)
No worries. War is unavoidable at times - dictators exist, people get desperate, and so on. There are legalities involved, and they are a concern but aren’t my main concern. Morally, there’s a difference to me between killing someone because I hate them and killing someone because I’m a combatant and so are they. There are strict rules to war that help are supposed to keep things largely ethical - I understand war is never going to be “clean”. Policies like rules of engagement, being able to surrender, treatment of POWs, genuinely avoiding targetting civilians (the world could use more of that right now) and stopping when your country tells you to all matter to me.
Soldiers are not asked to make decisions about who they’ll kill (I mean which armies, not rules of engagement), so the individuals are not being relied upon to determine justice. That is a big difference from vigilantism, where a person or mob of people decides who lives and dies. Ideally the leaders of the military and country are making sure war is a necessary last resort and conducted according to rules, and if that isn’t happening then other nations should be condemning and opposing them. It’s like how I think nations need prisons, but I don’t think I should be allowed to take someone hostage because I’m pretty sure they deserve it.
But haven’t you seen countless cases of examples where those strict rules for war have been completely ignored? Russia is just ignoring them completely in Ukraine, Israel is just straight-up conducting a genocide and no western country gives a shit apparently, for the US there are countless cases of shit like the My Lai massacre or the US sponsorships of terrorist organisations in South America…
States are just big systems that exist to give people a monopoly on violence.
Perhaps you didn’t know this, but Russia IS being opposed by to the tune of billions of dollars of support and widespread condemnation for their war of aggression including meaningful economic sanctions and asset seizures. It’s facilitated the killing of just under 700,000 Russian soldiers and tons of equipment according to the Ukrainian government. The only reason NATO won’t deploy troops is because no one wants WW3. Nations are even now considering escalating their support following the deployment of North Koreans.
Israel IS being opposed by huge swathes of the world. If the US (and to a lesser extent other Western countries) weren’t providing diplomatic and military cover for them, they’d have been censured in the UN for decades now and potentially stopped. Long story short, the US is just as at fault for the genocide as Israel due to providing the diplomatic/military means via decades of “blank check” support. So do you think US policy means that civilians should start killing Zionists in America and abroad? Should civilians have killed Biden and his whole cabinet a few months into the war because boundaries on war are being broken?
As far as US atrocities, I don’t think they are going as unnoticed worldwide as you might think. I won’t put words in your mouth, but do you want me to believe that other countries should be sending civilians to kill American voters? If not, then why did you mention those massacres in the context of our conversation about mob killing vs. formal war?
Your argument that rules shouldn’t matter because sometimes they are broken is flawed. I’m not a warmonger, quite the opposite. However, you won’t get me to agree that civilians should believe they have the moral obligation to murder other civilians because wars are sometimes unjust. There are unjust trials. Doesn’t mean people shouldn’t have the right to a trial before they’re killed. There are bad politicians, doesn’t mean all politics should be banned. There are bad marriages. There are bad police. There are bad doctors.
it isn’t murder if they are an enemy combatant.
Combatant is different. If this was a civil war or something similar (and thus ruled by laws of war) and someone was a combatant you’d be absolutely correct. But the people here are talking about killing a civilian, as civilians, while not at war, and without trial which is definitely murder.
Who gets to decide it’s a civil war?
Historically it’s leaders like presidents, governors, legislative bodies, and generals. Not forum posts.
deleted by creator
I guess if you make the 134 million guns owners in America enraged and frightened for their life by providing concrete examples of killing them you can make sure it’s a civil war.
Kinda cool to be in the front row seat tho ngl
Then leave? Nobody is telling you to be here. It’s still a free* country.
- Terms and Conditions may apply
They probably want to stay and steer their fellow citizens away from violent crimes and towards resisting in ways that don’t make them look like murderous stalkers. Why don’t you leave? If the US has become enough to justify these crimes, you’re still free to do so. You said so yourself.
Sounds like we all should move to where you’re at. Where do you live?
Canada. Hope you’ve got a job considered valuable, because there’s a lot of Americans trying to get here apparently.
What do you do? I’ll just take your job IRL like these dipshit MAGA Republicans complain about anyways.
How in demand is warehouse maintenance work?
Rebrand as oil and gas facility repair and you might get hired here in Alberta lol Our current Premier is very pro-fossil fuel.
It should be everywhere.
And don’t come to me with the bullshit ‘tolerance paradox’. Tolerance is not a human right. It’s a clause of a societal contract and whoever start by breaking the contract is no longer covered by it.
Nazis get punched and nazis get doxxed.
Wait am I just misunderstanding what the Tolerance Paradox is?
My read of the Tolerance Paradox is that it’s Ok to punch Nazis because if you render yourself unwilling to participate in violence, there are others who will happily do it for (to) you.
The tolerance paradox is the idea that the one thing tolerant people cannot tolerate is intolerance. Doing so allows intolerance to take root and potentially win because it’s unopposed. Which I agree with. Where I split from some people in this and other threads is believing that not tolerating intolerance = killing those you consider intolerant. I know you only said punching, but if people start beating people en masse (and a lot of people are considered Nazis nowadays) it’s going to escalate very quickly. Plus some are already calling for more than punching.
I think Ghandi and his followers understood this.
And Ghandi also has quotes saying you have an obligation to try peace at first but sometimes there is no alternative to violence, especially in self-defense.
https://www.azquotes.com/author/5308-Mahatma_Gandhi/tag/violence
Damn right it is lmao
People always sleepvon the Midwest, but we go hard out here man.
Gotta love the decentralized aspect of lemmy
Who?
A literal neo-nazi. He was on Infowars with NazYe too.
I don’t get that. Doesn’t Fuentes realize Kanye is black? Doesn’t Kanye realize Fuentes is a white supremacist? Why are they in cahoots?
Doesn’t Kanye realize Fuentes is a white supremacist?
Fuentes sounds like a Latino name. Trump should have him deported.
/s
Lol, don’t expect neonazis to be internally consistent when they can use “one of the good ones” to further the narrative against their class.
Right wing influencer who who tweeted out “Your body, my choice” in response to the abortion issue.
Shoot, I guess I missed it. Can someone re-post?
Have you reported it?
His house, the people’s choice. The information being available just allows people to make an informed decision of whether or not to use it, and in what way.
I’ve been labelling a bunch of people in this thread, mostly with “likes doxxing”, but you my friend get “LOVES doxxing”. Congrats 🎉
His address, my choice
Bold thing to say when your house is flammable.
A screenshot I saw somewhere.
Hes probably like “your body my choice” so its only a somewhat fair trade.
He did tweet that.
- I am not in twitter and will not go to verify it. This is multiple third-party sources
The screenshot I saw explained that the person that posted it said “Your house, my choice” and it just goes so fucking hard.
