Social Justice Warriors hack Klan Twitter account

[fishbob]

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:

KKK members are still KKK members.
Maybe the group is splintered but the current members are still capable of the same old rascally KKK hijinks.

 

[Unabogie]

I'm only vaguely familiar with Ferguson riots, but reading from the wiki: "Along with peaceful protests, there was looting and violent unrest in the vicinity of the original shooting". That in mind, and having had a similar riot (although not racially but ethnically charged) in our capital, that poster is something I'd be willing to get behind. What's your problem with that poster?

Poster, as in person, or flyer, as in what the Klan was handing out?

 

[varwoche]

I'm only vaguely familiar with Ferguson riots, but reading from the wiki: "Along with peaceful protests, there was looting and violent unrest in the vicinity of the original shooting". That in mind, and having had a similar riot (although not racially but ethnically charged) in our capital, that poster is something I'd be willing to get behind. What's your problem with that poster?

Even if the kkk were not a violent, racist hate group, vigilantism is the last thing that anyone needs, including law enforcement.

On top of which, kkk is indeed a violent, racist hate group.

A better question is, what is not a problem with that poster?

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Poster, as in person, or flyer, as in what the Klan was handing out?

The flyer.

Even if the kkk were not a violent, racist hate group, vigilantism is the last thing that anyone needs, including law enforcement.

I didn't read vigilantism anywhere there, it was ostensibly about self-defense, which they in fact even quoted from law.

On top of which, kkk is indeed a violent, racist hate group.

Yup.

A better question is, what is not a problem with that poster?

No, I think the onus is on you, if you feel that way, to tell us what's the problem with what the flyer is saying. Maybe it has nothing to do with what the flyer says, but rather with who penned the flyer.

 

[varwoche]

I didn't read vigilantism anywhere there, it was ostensibly about self-defense, which they in fact even quoted from law.

BS of a truly high order.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The flyer.



I didn't read vigilantism anywhere there, it was ostensibly about self-defense, which they in fact even quoted from law.



Yup.



No, I think the onus is on you, if you feel that way, to tell us what's the problem with what the flyer is saying. Maybe it has nothing to do with what the flyer says, but rather with who penned the flyer.

They didn't actually quote from the law. They cited the law. And I looked it up. It does not say what they claim it says and in fact, might actually have problems for them as the law says that if the persons "protecting themselves" are seen to be the cause of the violence, they could be prosecuted.

Traveling 100 km to confront demonstrators is not self-protection. It is creating a conflict. Then claiming (before hand) that it was in self-defense is an absurd notion.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

BS of a truly high order.

What exactly is BS?

They didn't actually quote from the law. They cited the law.

What's the difference?

And I looked it up. It does not say what they claim it says and in fact, might actually have problems for them as the law says that if the persons "protecting themselves" are seen to be the cause of the violence, they could be prosecuted.

Okay. So the problem is that it's an incorrect cite?

Traveling 100 km to confront demonstrators is not self-protection. It is creating a conflict. Then claiming (before hand) that it was in self-defense is an absurd notion.

I've no idea what this has to do with the flyer though.

 

[Foolmewunz]

What exactly is BS?



What's the difference?



Okay. So the problem is that it's an incorrect cite?



I've no idea what this has to do with the flyer though.

The flyer is about vigilantism. That's not a right. It's against the law. And it's not an incorrect cite, it's a misinterpretation of the cite. There is no law on the books in Missouri that allows you to get an armed posse together to go prevent trouble in some community.

 

[phiwum]

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 [...]

The mathematics pedant in me wants to hurt you.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

The flyer is about vigilantism. That's not a right. It's against the law.

I think this needs to be justified. Nothing I read there seems to indicate it's vigilantism. Can you point me to those parts?

I think the fact that it's the KKK is clouding your ability to assess the flyer on its own. If that was posted by some local Mother's hobby group, you wouldn't see it as an excuse to provoke and execute minorities. I can't disagree with anything said on that flyer. But given it's a KKK group, I'd be extremely doubtful they'd follow the message of the flyer as intended.

And given that racists are, surprisingly, people too - just with different and understandably offensive views -, not some evil incarnate, we usually have more or less the same goals in life, eg protect our freedom, safety, livelihood and families. So I'm willing to entertain the idea that maybe, just maybe some of them want to protect their safety, families and livelihood. I don't like the apparent condemnation of anyone trying to take a neutral, purely skeptical stance, like WildCat received here.

I'm pretty confident the KKK will provoke people and start trouble. I'm also pretty confident nothing on that flyer is vile or unreasonable. Also, if I had people on my side protecting me and my family's safety against looters and rioters, I don't care if they're the KKK, Nazis or bin Laden family. But maybe I'm crazy But as I said, I'm pretty sure the flyer is not actually representative of what the real actions of KKK will be.

And it's not an incorrect cite, it's a misinterpretation of the cite.

So what's the misinterpretation?

There is no law on the books in Missouri that allows you to get an armed posse together to go prevent trouble in some community.

We must have read a different flyer.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Social Justice Warriors hack Klan Twitter account
There is a diary on Kos about Anonymous seizing control of the KKK's Twitter Accounts.

Since when is Anonymous = SJW? Are there any damning indications I have missed?

 

[Stellafane]

Has this forum really sunk so low we're defending the freaking KKK?

I'm ashamed.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Has this forum really sunk so low we're defending the freaking KKK?

Are you, now?

I'm ashamed.

Shame is rarely a useful tool in skeptic's toolkit.

That's emotional thinking, not rational.

 

[Stellafane]

Shame is rarely a useful tool in skeptic's toolkit.

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.

 

[phiwum]

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.

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.

 

[Stellafane]

...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.

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.

 

[marplots]

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.

Maybe they believe what they preach. That doesn't require them to be crazy or irrational, it just requires they have a different set of values.

 

[dudalb]

Has this forum really sunk so low we're defending the freaking KKK?

I'm ashamed.

Nah, we are defending the Klansmen right to free speech...two different things.
No one despises the Kluxers more then me,but I would defend their right to free speech.

 

[Foolmewunz]

@Teapot Cavalry

Here's the flyer text.

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

.... 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.



Note the distortions.... "terrorists masquerading as....".
Note the "sleeping giant". Well, sure, they mean the concerned citizens. Nonsense! They mean "the big bad klan is coming for you, ******!"
Note that they think this law gives them the okay to stand down, with guns, anyone "disrupting our daily lives".
Note that they're denying free speech ("threats of violence"), the very thing everyone here is up in arms about Anonymous doing.

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.

 

[Ranb]

Has this forum really sunk so low we're defending the freaking KKK?

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