• 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.

Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

Stout said:
1. A surveillance video of, say a store robbery, does the same thing.
Click to expand...

But it does not coexist with all the other points

Stout said:
2. The same could be said of a news report
Click to expand...

No it couldn't.

Stout said:
3. I don't even know what this means
Click to expand...

That's not really a rebuttal of anything

Stout said:
4. You figure people are fapping to this ?
Click to expand...

Surprise, people are excited by videos of "real life" murder. Particularly in this case, white supremacists are excited by white supremacist terror attacks. Your naivety isn't my problem; but just to get it out there, titillation also doesn't have to be sexual.

Stout said:
5. Are you suggesting we just take the word of a journalist who's watched the video and not do our own research ?
Click to expand...

Or take the word of police who've watched the video, as in the case of child porn (you really don't get to do your "own research" on those either).
 
William Parcher said:
There could be visible guts and brains if a person studied the piles of bodies or the individuals here and there.
Click to expand...

So micro-gore then. Freeze video zoom in, enhance, just like they do on TV.

Lets's switch gears then. Police bodycam footage of a man being shot. Just like the mosque shooter filmed. Youtube seems to think this is something worth hosting and they've left it up for over a year.

Objectionable ? worth 10 years in a New Zealand prison for clicking on the link.

Content note/trigger warning: First person view on an unarmed civilian being shot and killed.....YouTube link.

I wonder if it's not so objectionable because the person being shot is white.
 
BStrong said:
There's also this - NSFW - reporting on the Rhodesian bush war. Graphic violence exactly as you describe:
Click to expand...
Oh that's not nearly as bad as the Al Noor mosque. Was this video shown on American TV? Was the African mondo film shown on TV?
 
Stout said:
So micro-gore then. Freeze video zoom in, enhance, just like they do on TV.

Lets's switch gears then. Police bodycam footage of a man being shot. Just like the mosque shooter filmed. Youtube seems to think this is something worth hosting and they've left it up for over a year.

Objectionable ? worth 10 years in a New Zealand prison for clicking on the link.

Content note/trigger warning: First person view on an unarmed civilian being shot and killed.....YouTube link.

I wonder if it's not so objectionable because the person being shot is white.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, YouTube has gory stuff and so does LiveLeak. There are other sites hosting much worse.

When I said this mosque video is unlike a war documentary I meant the ones you would see on TV. The web is full of this stuff and much worse. I've never heard of anyone doing what New Zealand is doing now with their war against the video and people around it.
 
Checkmite said:
But it does not coexist with all the other points



No it couldn't.



That's not really a rebuttal of anything



Surprise, people are excited by videos of "real life" murder. Particularly in this case, white supremacists are excited by white supremacist terror attacks. Your naivety isn't my problem; but just to get it out there, titillation also doesn't have to be sexual.



Or take the word of police who've watched the video, as in the case of child porn (you really don't get to do your "own research" on those either).
Click to expand...

So what ?

Yes it could, see the Tylenol poisonings and subsequent copycat crimes.

No it isn't, it's more of a question or request for clarification posed a statement.

Maybe you meant to use a word other than prurient then because every definition I look up mentions sexual Maybe you meant to say that Nazis may like watching it and therefore I shouldn't be able to see it. Which would be weird, if true.

So no to the own research and again, in with the kiddie porn. I have no interest in researching kiddie porn. I hope you didn't click on that link I just posted.

I like this point form format.
 
dudalb said:
Who decides what is extremism and what is not? Who Will Watch The Watchers?

When they take away your freedom, they always have wonderful sounding reasons for doing so.
I am proud to be an absolutist when if comes to free speech.
Click to expand...

dudalb said:
I am really disturbed how many people seem willing to send Freedom of Speech to the curb.
Click to expand...

This is why I mention the example of child pornography. You are NOT free to view, download and distribute child pornography. Is this an egregious encroachment on your liberty?
 
While I think, if true, people getting fired over watching it, is bit panicky OTT, there is the simple element of decency and sympathy for the victims families having 100 loved ones mowed down on film on display all over the net, and even worse for the 50 that died.

Add to that it been made a crime in NZ to distribute it and the NZ govt has made a direct request to the social media giants to please remove it, personally think people moaning it is some sort of censorship hysteria should just suck it up.
 
William Parcher said:
Oh that's not nearly as bad as the Al Noor mosque. Was this video shown on American TV? Was the African mondo film shown on TV?
Click to expand...

The english version of Africa Addio is currently available On Demand TV and youtube. The Rhodesian reporting was shown locally (Rhodesia/SA) back in the day, and it too is available on YT (obviously)

In April 1968, nobody in America that turned on a TV could avoid this:





Edited by Loss Leader: 
NSFW tags added
 
Last edited by a moderator:
William Parcher said:
Oh yes, YouTube has gory stuff and so does LiveLeak. There are other sites hosting much worse.

When I said this mosque video is unlike a war documentary I meant the ones you would see on TV. The web is full of this stuff and much worse. I've never heard of anyone doing what New Zealand is doing now with their war against the video and people around it.
Click to expand...

Yet Youtube and Facebook apparently rushed to take this video down.

All my content comes from the internet, I haven't watched anything on regular television in years but I know what you're talking about and it's rather dated.

I've never heard of anyone doing what New Zealand is doing with this video either and frankly, it's alarming. I just hope it stays in New Zealand.
 
Stout said:
1. A surveillance video of, say a store robbery, does the same thing.
2. The same could be said of a news report
3. I don't even know what this means
4. You figure people are fapping to this ? Jeez, I never thought that Saving Private Ryan needed a XXX rating.
5. Are you suggesting we just take the word of a journalist who's watched the video and not do our own research ? , Not a New Zealand journalist of course because one of those would be looking at 10 years for admitting to watching this video in the first place.
Click to expand...

If we are jailing people, for distributing graphic video of a terrorist attack, taken by the terrorist himself, then I'm all for it.

I grow really tired of people to trying to "whatabout" this issue by comparing with war documentaries and surveillance footage as if they were somehow comparable THEY ARE NOT IN ANY WAY COMPARABLE!!

This vile excuse for a human being walked into a place of worship and cold bloodedly, brutally murdered 50 innocent civilian men, women and children, live streaming video of his outrage as he did so. If MY government wants to infringe the rights of a few of this murderer's supporters in order to minimize the chances of something like this ever happening again then they can have at it as far as I am concerned. If they want to make the possession, distribution and promulgation of White Nationalist and White Supremacist and NAZI materials illegal and a jailable offence, they have my full and undying support

Oh, and please don't give me the hoary old "where do you draw the line" chestnut. It does not apply here. Extreme political views such as Nazism, White Supremacy and ultra leftism have utterly no place in a civilized society.
 
Stout said:
Yet Youtube and Facebook apparently rushed to take this video down.

All my content comes from the internet, I haven't watched anything on regular television in years but I know what you're talking about and it's rather dated.

I've never heard of anyone doing what New Zealand is doing with this video either and frankly, it's alarming. I just hope it stays in New Zealand.
Click to expand...

??

You have never heard of child pornography being banned, or do you just mean with films of mass killings?
 
Stout said:
So what ?
Click to expand...

My list was meant to be inclusive, not "any one of the following". Legit pornography, for instance, is also meant to titillate, but it doesn't meet all of these other criteria either.

Stout said:
Yes it could, see the Tylenol poisonings and subsequent copycat crimes.
Click to expand...

The criminally-minded using ideas from crimes reported in a news article is not the same as the news report actively promoting and attempting to incite.

Stout said:
No it isn't, it's more of a question or request for clarification posed a statement.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see.

The sole and only point of this video, as with the point of a child porn video, is to showcase the abuse of the person/people who appear within it. Unlike, say, a surveillance video at a convenience store that was robbed: the security camera wasn't set up to depict that particular robbery, it was set up to record everything that happens in the store indiscriminately with the understanding that any illegal activities that happen to be caught can be helpful to police investigations of those activities. Certainly clips from surveillance footage can make it onto television later and serve as entertainment; but that was never the point of the security system and it's not what the footage was made for.

This video on the other hand isn't from a security camera, or even from a bystander trying to document a shocking event for police. The whole point was the killer showcasing the deaths of his victims.

Stout said:
Maybe you meant to use a word other than prurient then because every definition I look up mentions sexual
Click to expand...

Yes but prurient wasn't the only word I used in that bullet.


Stout said:
So no to the own research and again, in with the kiddie porn. I have no interest in researching kiddie porn.
Click to expand...

I'm suppose I'm glad you don't, but your own interest is irrelevant to my point; even if you had interest in researching it, you could not. And that's fine.
 
Last edited:
There is a reason this guy live streamed it. HE WANTS PEOPLE TO WATCH. That is the best reason not to, for anyone who actually needs one.

I don't have an opinion on the legal argument, I'm sick this week and can't think straight (yes even worse than usual).

I just have no desire to see something like that. I've seen some sick videos in my life. Police shootings just are not the same.

Seeing the individual faces, seeing the terror, then seeing them shot and killed. All at the hands of some douchebag. Not my thing, and for many reasons, ranging from personal to a belief that this could make matters worse (again, he wants us to watch it).
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
If we are jailing people, for distributing graphic video of a terrorist attack, taken by the terrorist himself, then I'm all for it.

I grow really tired of people to trying to "whatabout" this issue by comparing with war documentaries and surveillance footage as if they were somehow comparable THEY ARE NOT IN ANY WAY COMPARABLE!!

This vile excuse for a human being walked into a place of worship and cold bloodedly, brutally murdered 50 innocent civilian men, women and children, live streaming video of his outrage as he did so. If MY government wants to infringe the rights of a few of this murderer's supporters in order to minimize the chances of something like this ever happening again then they can have at it as far as I am concerned. If they want to make the possession, distribution and promulgation of White Nationalist and White Supremacist and NAZI materials illegal and a jailable offence, they have my full and undying support

Oh, and please don't give me the hoary old "where do you draw the line" chestnut. It does not apply here. Extreme political views such as Nazism, White Supremacy and ultra leftism have utterly no place in a civilized society.
Click to expand...

Oh no, really that's good that you're all for internet censorship and with any luck you'll have Russian or Chinese style restrictions on what you're allowed to see and say. It's all very progressive, really.
 
Checkmite, I hear what you're saying I just don't see this guy getting the reaction he was hoping for. As far as I can tell, 99.99% of the people who've heard about this incident think the guy is a total douchbag who is best dealt with to the harshest extreme of the law.

Granted I haven't been over to the Daily Stormfront to see what they're saying ( haven't booted up the computer with the VPN on it ) but I will, eventually.

A year from now the world, excluding New Zealand is going to forget about this incident and we'll probably have to do some searching to refresh our memories of what happened there.

As long as there's whackos and extremists in the world we're going to have these kinds of attacks and we're going to speculate on how much access to information "causes" them to happen.
 
arthwollipot said:
Believe me, it's not hard to find in Australia.



#eggboi
Click to expand...
"#Eggboi" is part of the problem. One extreemist assaulting another. Giving publicity to Anning. I think he will now get more than 16 votes next election, even if he does not get in. There are likely more than 16 biggots in QLD who now see Anning as the way forward for their ideology. Eggboy just escalated things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom