Hacker Collective Attacks KKK Sites (theepochtimes.com) 191
An anonymous reader writes: A KKK web site went offline for several hours Saturday, part of an ongoing attack campaign being attributed to "several hacker collectives, including Anonymous and BinarySec, under a loosely-coordinated operation theyâ(TM)re calling #OpKKK." The Epoch Times newspaper reports that "Over the course of the last couple months, websites belonging to the KKK flicked off and on, members of the hate group have had their identities posted online, and their recruiting efforts have been attacked." Saturday's DDoS attack and others are being chronicled on Twitter with the hashtag #OpKKK, prompting the newspaper to describe the collective as "very active".
"Part of OpKKK is bringing attention to the fact that these groups are not dead and are in fact finding a new life online..." one attacker told the newspaper. "We private citizens have the right to pass judgment and respond to hate speech and those who perpetuate these dangerous ideals...and there are consequences."
"Part of OpKKK is bringing attention to the fact that these groups are not dead and are in fact finding a new life online..." one attacker told the newspaper. "We private citizens have the right to pass judgment and respond to hate speech and those who perpetuate these dangerous ideals...and there are consequences."
Zealots. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even the KKK deserves their freedom of speech. I might support a temporary disruption of service purposes of raising awareness of an issue - the online equivalent of a sit-in protest - but I think everyone is already aware that the KKK exists.
Dangerous Zealots. (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA: "Groups like the KKK are protected by free speech. Zombie Ghost said, however, that only the government isn’t allowed to infringe on free speech, and that “We private citizens have the right to pass judgment and respond to hate speech and those who perpetuate these dangerous ideals and there are consequences.”"
I've been hearing this misunderstanding of free speech more and more. He is right, in that we have a right to pass judgement as private citizens. He is wrong in the part left unsaid. Private citizens do NOT have a right to impose "consequences", especially when those consequences are illegal.
Re:Dangerous Zealots. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod up.
As private citizens we cannot "pass judgement" - that's for the courts.
We can have an opinion, and should respond to this kind of crap by voicing it.
Legally.
Re: (Score:2)
the courts have failed us and don't work anymore.
so, whatever we want to do, I'm all for it. chaos, anarchy, I don't give a fuck anymore.
its clear as day; the legal system is useless for regular people and its gamed by those in power. and yes, the kkk has power, oddly enough. in some dank southern towns, they have scary amounts of power. and did the legal system do anything? of course not; in some towns, the legal system is overlapped by kkk membership!
no, the legal system has failed us. it would be g
Re: (Score:2)
"in some towns, the legal system is overlapped by kkk membership!"
You have effectively proved a conclusion I've been converging on for a long time--we humans cannot self-govern in a manner that is "fair" to all sorts of people. This should be obvious of course, considering our evolutionary upbringing. Indeed, all social/political problems are intractable.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't try, however, as we have to do *something*. But, we continue to approach everything from ideological perspectives mould
Re:Dangerous Zealots. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Those people generally "respond" by taking over the moderation of several places and carpet banning and deleting everything that goes against their rhetoric, and when its outside the internet calling the police with bomb threats, hitting the fire alarm etc etc etc..
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, Those people generally "respond" by taking over the moderation of several places and carpet banning and deleting everything that goes against their rhetoric, and when its outside the internet calling the police with bomb threats, hitting the fire alarm etc etc etc..
Ok, so all the posters being called SJWs here on Slashdot or Reddit or elsewhere for having an opinion have such magical censorship powers? Good to know how you view your reality and people you disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, because mostly they're not even actually SJWs.
Sadly several right wing extremists use SJW as "anyone i disagree with", instead of well, using it to correctly point at the indoctrinated social justice fanatics, including the very powerful and full of connections san francisco clique.
Those people probably would do the same exact shit if they could, but fortunately their thing is not popular or well disguised enough to sneak in.
Re: Dangerous Zealots. (Score:1)
The way some people incorrectly use "right wing extremists" to label people they don't like?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much.
If people can't even use memes correctly on the internet, how to expect they use specific terms like that?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's probably time to stop glorifying attacks (even electronic ones) against people that we don't like when they haven't done anything other than say shit that we don't like. I keep seeing anonymous talk about how free speech and privacy is wonderful and all, but any time they don't like somebody for the things that they say, what do they do to that person? Intimidate their speech by doxing them. In other words, it seems that they like to take it upon themselves to deprive others of the same things
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find quite a bit of the anger pointed at the KKK is not just because of what they say, but what they incite people to do, which includes a fair bit of racially-motivated violence. Pretending it's because they're making seasoned arguments or pointing out uncomfortable truths or something like that shows you either don't understand the KKK or are pretending to not understand it in order to make a point.
And you should probably understand that Anonymous isn't a group. It has no leadership. You
Re: (Score:2)
The way some people incorrectly use "right wing extremists" to label people they don't like?
It's the X-wing extremists that worry me...
You're minding your own business in your Death Star and suddenly WHAM!!!
They hit you so hard it makes a noise in Space!
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dangerous Zealots. (Score:4, Insightful)
No, nothing hateful or biased in that question. As I said, the deliberately trolling questions were deliberately trolling.
And the second was accusations of elitism, without a question in there (other than, why are you an elitist).
Both of those questions were obvious trolls. Neither asked a question that would have resulted in an interesting answer.
Your complaint is "someone downmodded the obvious trolls" That makes you the troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, unless you're nice to somebody and ask them easy questions, you're a troll. I guess I was never told that you weren't allowed to ask harsh questions in an interview.
Yes. When you deliberately pick abusive questions, you are a troll. How is that so hard to understand? It's one of the basic definitions of troll.
There are other people in that article observing it. You don't think that's odd?
It does sound odd. Are you implying that Slashdot abused the moderation system to that effect, or that the SJWs saved all their mod points in an SJW conspiracy, and used them all after the MRAs had already wasted theirs?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the reason you have such problems with people online is your uncanny ability to make sweeping illogical generalisations without even noticing it. That will raise ire with anyone who cares to have a reasonable discussion, as it is the hallmark of someone arguing opinion rather than fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
they don't deserve that right while they spout racial messages all day.
You're aware that's what Social Justice advocated do, right?
Re:Dangerous Zealots. (Score:5, Informative)
I've been hearing this misunderstanding of free speech more and more.
There's free speech, which is normally a shorthand for the right to free speech, which is constitutionally protected at the Federal level and often at the state level and the former is often used to enforce that right nationwide where government attempts to limit it.
Then there's freedom of expression, which is the philosophical concept of the moral right to express one's opinion free from arbitrary constraints and reprisals.
Pedants who use the limitations of constitutional freedom of speech as a justification for attacks on freedom of expression I think are somewhat dangerous. If you believe that freedom of expression is good, I don't think you should ever endorse private reprisals against the expression of unpopular opinion. Censorship and repression of speech aren't good qualities just because they are exercised by private entities, especially when implemented as hostile attacks designed to limit the freedom of expression of others.
I think this leads to a mob mentality that justifies repressive behavior against unpopular opinion. If hacking KKK sites is justified because you believe their ideas are reprehensible, why doesn't that give the KKK moral justification for hacking Black Lives Matter? "Black Lives Matter is good and the KKK is bad" isn't sufficient.
Freedom of expression should hold that everyone should be able to express their opinion without fear of reprisal. People may decide not to like you or support you based on your opinions, but this is a the natural outcome of the marketplace of ideas. But if you endorse affirmative attacks on unpopular speech makers, you are only relying on the winds of popular opinion before you may be subject to those same attacks with the same moral weight you claim to have.
Re: (Score:2)
If I'm on a board of directors and the CEO comes out as a KKK member, there's going to be a reprisal; and that is that the CEO is going to be out on his ass. In fact, in the organization I'm working for right now, with the ethnically diverse client group, a KKK member at any level would do the organization harm, and they'd be out. The forms would be obeyed; they would given severance, but they simple could not work there any more.
There really is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech. Even the Founding
Re: (Score:3)
So you'll kick him out because it could be damaging to your company image, not because he's a member of KKK. ... (insert not PC actions here)
Now tell me, would you do the same for an anti gay/lesbian? Or for a pro-abortion? Or for
Re: (Score:2)
If someone in my organization's employ was making homophobic remarks, then I'd say they're on tenuous ground. If they go to the level the KKK does, then yes, they're job is finished. Considering the number of LGBT clients, the organization simply could not tolerate someone like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as I figured, you don't give a damn about people's convictions, you only care about being seen as PC. Let me guess, American or western european? Working in a multinational company?
Re: (Score:2)
People can have all the convictions they want. When they work in organizations whose client base is made up of the very populations that this hypothetical person is publicly espousing bigotry against, then they can take their convictions with them along with their personal effects. We will not lose clients because some asshole decides to publicly start making racist or homophobic declarations. Clients and customers come first... always.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that it's not *really* the content of this hypothetical employee's opinions but whether or not they espouse those opinions in a public forum where your customers may hear them and link them to your business, therefore costing you business.
So really it's the controversial nature of the opinion. If the employee came out with an opinion that was factually true but controversial to your customer base, would you still fire them? Let's say you have a large number of single mothers as cu
Re: (Score:2)
The first opinion, while unpopular, does not really target any individual group, except broadly those who live in poorer economic conditions, so no, I can't say as he would be dismissed. In the second case, no, I probably wouldn't seek dismissal, but the employee would be under some degree of scrutiny. You're not going to fire someone for privately held beliefs that they keep quiet, or at least I wouldn't. But really it's situation specific. What if the situation was as you described, and you discovered, sa
Re: (Score:2)
LGBT: "I want to be treated as a normal person"
KKK: "Black people should not be treated as normal people"
Sure - they're precisely comparable! Yay for you!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's flip it around though: Rather than a multinational corporation, the business is a more local affair operating in a small part of, say, Alabama. Word gets out that you have a gay CEO, and the local church groups start putting out scare stories attacking his morality, claiming the company is somehow endangering children and seeks to destroy churches, the usual - fringe homophobic stuff, but this is the deep south and the majority of the local population love that kind of thing. Their boycott is actually
Re: (Score:3)
I think the clarification actually needs to go a bit further. It's not the freedom of speech, not really. It's the right to free speech.
To put this in perspective, I have the freedom to punch you in the mouth. I do not have a right to do so. Or, if you prefer, I am not at liberty to punch you in the mouth.
You have a right to free speech. That right, like any other, can be limited. As I may not be able to reply, I will to make it clearer. Try to communicate with a certain class of prisoners. Try saying somet
Re: (Score:2)
LOL Yup, you're the only one that I know of. And I may well avail myself of your offer to lend a hand. I'll be returning to Maine soon. My request to visit Cuba is not going to make it through the red tape for another month. So, I'm getting things squared away down here and will be returning to Maine soon. I'll probably leave early, stop back in at a few places on the East Coast, and then be home a couple of weeks after I take off. Yay! More hotels!
Ah well... I've got some friends to see along the way. I do
Re: (Score:2)
I think this leads to a mob mentality that justifies repressive behavior against unpopular opinion. If hacking KKK sites is justified because you believe their ideas are reprehensible, why doesn't that give the KKK moral justification for hacking Black Lives Matter? "Black Lives Matter is good and the KKK is bad" isn't sufficient.
It isn't without a certain irony that you should talk about mob mentality in the context of KKK. a group that was notorious for forming lynch mobs and committing the most loathsome atrocities - which still rank up there with the actions of the likes of Daesh, the only major difference being that where their crimes were a sort of cottage industry and not quite so organised.
Maybe they have mellowed out over the years, maybe they are now just about family and nostalgia and wistfully slagging off those of the w
Re: (Score:2)
Should they be allowed the freedom of expression? Of course, like everybody else, but I think it is the duty of everybody with a bit of decency to speak loudly and clearly out against that kind of things.
They key phrase here is "speak loudly and clearly against it" -- you of course should speak out against it. But regardless of the vile nature of their opinion, you don't have the right to destroy their printing press, for example.
I'm a cynic, but I still think that American society as a whole is mostly rea
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, outlet. Did the KKK burn any nigger lately? Or are they these days just nostalgic people dressing up in white costumes with pointy hats?
Re:Dangerous Zealots. (Score:4, Informative)
Can you define "consequences"? While I agree that no one has the right to do anything illegal, there is no right to be free of the consequences of your speech. If you publicly and openly espouse racist beliefs, then there will be consequences; everything from shunning by friends and neighbors to even potentially losing your job. The state cannot punish you for your beliefs, but society is not limited to state action.
Re:Dangerous Zealots. (Score:4, Informative)
In the Jim Crow south, there was a body of law that sought to deprive blacks of political and economic rights. Segregation wasn't merely a sort of social agreement between white folk, it was the law in several states.
Re: (Score:2)
The Civil Rights Acts will certainly come down on you hard if you try to recreate Jim Crow segregation. But then again, that's how Jim Crow was destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
Define "illegal". .. and got away with it with the support of every republican moron in the land, .. citing the current bogeyman of "war on terror" as their excuse to get around every protection the US Constitution affords.
I watch every-single-day as the US gov does all sorts of "illegal" bullshit claiming any-and-every form of "executive privilege".
CRAB violated every law they chose to on bullshit premises,
Forget islamic state, the US gov, (House, Senate and supreme court) which are now under total contr
Re: (Score:2)
So, you're saying that someone should be able to refuse to do business with someone because they said they were gay? You'd say that someone should be able to refuse to do business with someone because they said they were black? (Maybe it was them calling for a pizza and the guy mentioned he'd be waiting for the pizza delivery man outside because he's in a locked apartment building and that he'd be the black man with the red jacket.)
Or, is it only okay if they said something *you* don't like?
Err... I'm not s
Re: (Score:2)
Private citizens are always free to not do business with a business for any reason. You are free to not go into the pizza place that's owned by the gay black guy.
Public businesses such as the pizza place are not free to stop the black gay guy from ordering a pizza as it is discrimination and being open to the public means just that, open to the public. They can have blanket non-discriminatory rules such as no shirt, no service.
There's always a gray area too, such as is a Church public or private? In Canada
Re: (Score:2)
"You are free to not go into the pizza place that's owned by the gay black guy."
Currently true, but that doesn't mean it isn't an issue. It posed a serious problem back in the days racism was socially acceptable: A black man might have been able legally to open a business in a majority-white community, but if most of the locals refused to go there that business would soon go under. The power of a boycott is to express disapproval through commercial pressure, and it works just as well for the other side as i
Re: (Score:2)
It's a question of conflicting rights, in this case the rights of individuals to not be discriminated against, versus the rights of businesses to discriminate, and since businesses are not individuals, but rather creations of law (even the smallest business usually needs a license), the individual wins, at least in my country where our Constitution actually says,
Re: (Score:2)
Even the KKK deserves their freedom of speech.
nobody has been jailed, which is the only thing the first amendment guarantees. what the first amendment does not guarantee is your ability to spread your message regardless of its value.
I think everyone is already aware that the KKK exists.
*gasp!* are you calling Donald Trump a liar?! [npr.org] ;)
Re: (Score:2)
what the first amendment does not guarantee is your ability to spread your message regardless of its value.
But that doesn't give anybody the right to harm you.
Re: (Score:2)
But that doesn't give anybody the right to harm you.
and i never claimed it did.
Re:Zealots. (Score:5, Insightful)
But that doesn't give anybody the right to harm you.
and i never claimed it did.
[Sigh]
By asserting it's just to take down someone's web servers because you don't believe in their message, you did assert exactly that.
The provider could take the web sites down because they don't like the site's speech, outside parties don't have a right to interfere with the consensual transaction of third parties. And that's exactly what you are advocating.
Re: (Score:2)
By asserting it's just to take down someone's web servers because you don't believe in their message, you did assert exactly that.
i have made no such assertions nor were they implied. you however have incorrectly inferred it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Other pro-censorship post....
People have a right to say what they please, and nobody any right to silence them.
Try reading the amendment some time. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." It does indeed protect the right to spread a message regardless of it's content. Nothing in there backs up your claim.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that ads are protected by the first amendment too. Following your logic any kind of ad blocking should be illegal.
And while physically restraining a person from speaking is indeed assault. If I am hosting a private event, I can ask you to leave for any reason, and if you refuse to comply, then you are trespassing and I have the right to detain you until the cops arrive.
Re: (Score:2)
You know that ads are protected by the first amendment too. Following your logic any kind of ad blocking should be illegal. .
Logic? Blocking ads from displaying in *my* browser doesn't stop the advertiser (or host/developer) from placing their ads on the website/webpage. They're still there on the webpage for anyone else to see . It just means that *I* don't have to see it or listen to them; Free speech means you're allowed to say it, but it doesn't guarantee that I must listen to it.
It's fair so long as I'm not preventing anyone else from being exposed to it; restraining speech would be if I hacked the web server and actual
Re: (Score:2)
I think we need to ask a lawyer for this one. But I know that trespassing is used by casinos to evict unwanted people like card counters.
Card counting is legal but casinos are private properties so they politely ask you to leave because you are "trespassing". If you resist (which is stupid) and only in this case they can arrest you.
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER (Score:1)
> Even the KKK deserves their freedom of speech.
Exactly this.
If KKK (or Nazi, or anyone) are so wrong, you should prove it with ease - and by doing so make everyone hate them. Simple?
But liberalism is afraid some of the things they say might be right. While it it wrong itself.
Fuck liberalism and their hypocrisy.
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.
Re: (Score:2)
They also aren't relevant nor particularly dangerous anymore.
I'd like to see the same set of idiots go after ISIS or the Egyptian government, or perhaps North Korea. You know, folks actually doing bad shit rather than someone sitting around wishing bad shit would happen.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't, for the same reason feminists on the internet don't go after any one of the several Islamic countries with oppressive laws or culture towards women: That would require serious effort and an investment of time and money, and a considerable personal risk. It's much easier to just post about more local issues online - that way you get the feel-good smugness of trying to make the world better, and you don't even have to learn another language.
I'm at least honest. I could learn Arabic and join some f
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because there is no authority that can be trusted with the power to declare who is lying.
Re: (Score:2)
> Hey look! They've rebranded "racist neo-nazi scumbags" as "Ethno Nationalists". Cool.
It's alright. Wait until you find out what they've done with the phrase "civil rights" and the word "equality."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it takes a lot of dedicated people pushing very hard to overcome the 'eww' factor. Look at interracial relationships or homosexuality - the time scale for such changes is in decades, and there were a lot more people pushing for those to become acceptable. Perhaps one day society will be ready to debate that subject, but not today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they're both hateful. One just wants all the Jews dead, the other just wants the Jews moved somewhere else. I'd say the latter inevitably leads to the former, because you're going to find people don't want to move, or perhaps cannot, and thus you start with Hitler's ideas of moving all the Jews to one location,and ends with Auschwitz.
Sorry, "ethno nationalism" is racism. It is a repugnant creed concocted by evil people.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the actual "biological" races, such as they are, are considerably different from the Eurocentric ideas concocted from the 16th to 19th centuries. So really, most "ethno nationalists" are just invoking racial pseudoscience from the 19th century.
Besides, they are just racists, invoking the same tired nonsense that those before them concocted. Somehow they think their bigotry is abated because, you know, they don't want to kill any Jews or blacks, they just want to make them leave.
meh (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only accusations, nothing really happened.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:meh (Score:4, Informative)
The KKK is granddad's white's only club. The current white supremacist movements overtook them a long time ago.
But the KKK didn't come to its low point simply because people walked away. The FBI spent years undermining, much as it does with newer white supremacist organizations.
Idiots (Score:1)
"We private citizens have the right to pass judgment"
Sure, when you're acting as a jury in a proper court of law. Otherwise, go fuck yourselves.
Freedom of speech is not divisible (Score:1)
A bit corny, but appropriate
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]... )
Perhaps the modern equivalent is:
First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out
Re: (Score:2)
They = 'Anonymous' perchance? (Score:2)
The fact that the quote applied originally to one set of thugs that happened to be the legal government of Germany doesn't mean that it isn't appropriate for another set of thugs who aren't a government.
Didn't these guys declare war on Islam State? (Score:2)
Anonymous is not government; whack KKK (Score:1)
If government were to suppress KKK websites, that would be unconstitutional. And we uphold the the constitution because giving rights to everyone means that sometimes they will be abused by assholes. For Christians, Pastafarians, and Atheists to be able to talk about their beliefs, we also have to allow Scientologist to flap their evil lips too.
However, in this case, it’s one private group (a loose affiliation of Anonymous and some others) waging a media campaign against another private group. If t
A scary analysis (Score:2)
Well said. Wish I could mod it up - /sarcasm and shoot the people who moded it down... /sarcasm off
Re: (Score:2)
I looked up SJW, and one thing I noticed was the tendency to throw insults at people who disagree with them. You may be falling into that same trap.
Now, while it's certainly denying the KKK a right, keep in mind that this will ultimately resolve itself. It's not like they're going to be denied this right permanently. Also, by doing this, Anonymous is using their usual moral gray area practices to do social justice. The ultimate effect is that it'll draw both Anonymous and KKK practices more into the pub
Re: (Score:2)
So it's purely an accident that there has been precisely one black president since the 13th Amendment was passed over 150 years go, and no female presidents since the 19th Amendment nearly 96 years ago, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I can see why you post as an AC.
oh, great (Score:2)
By attacking their web sites like that, you reinforce their world view. The only potentially effective action in that list is identifying them; force them to justify the KKK to their family, friends, co-workers, and voters.
Re: (Score:2)
"force them to justify the KKK to their family, friends, co-workers, and voters", they'd only be preaching to the faithful. These ideas do not exist in a vacuum, they exist because of community support, birds of a feather and all that. Racists are generally not born, they a groomed from a young age. By the time they are 18-20, it is almost impossible to get those ideas out of their heads.
There's a reason religions get inculcated in the young, why Communist parties have youth leagues, why gangs prey on the y
Re: (Score:3)
"force them to justify the KKK to their family, friends, co-workers, and voters", they'd only be preaching to the faithful.
Having grown up in the Deep South, I can assure you that the KKK is a tiny, and generally despised, minority. Sure, they have close friends and family who share their secret, but outside of that tiny subculture, in the broader community, they are subject to scorn and ridicule. Why do you think they're not public with their membership???
Re: (Score:2)
> These ideas do not exist in a vacuum ...
I need to say this *really* carefully lest I be completely misunderstood and you (or anyone else) ascribe things to me that I did not say nor even hint at.
And that is this:
Nor do stereotypes exist in a vacuum.
Yup. I said it. I'll point out, again, that I'm part black and very clearly not white. The problem is that ignorant people believe that stereotypical folks, those belonging to that group, are *all* like that and are that way because of some genetic make-up.
CCC vs KKK (Score:2)
This should prove interesting
CCC = Chaos Compter Club, a German hacker collective.
Could hacktivists be defeating their own purpose? (Score:2)
I am guessing that groups like the KKK are monitored by federal law enforcement.
Could such hacking muck with ongoing investigations?
Not long ago, the feds told hacktivists to stop trying to take down ISIS communications. These actions interfere with the people who can actually do something to stop terrorist organizations.
BTW: what has the KKK done in the last 50 years? A few pointless marches?
Re: (Score:2)
I am guessing that groups like the KKK are monitored by federal law enforcement.
At this point, most of the members are probably FBI agents.
Could such hacking muck with ongoing investigations?
Yup.
BTW: what has the KKK done in the last 50 years? A few pointless marches?
Indeed. This is just pointless if not counter-productive moral preening by SJWs high on over-hyped racism/"white supremacy" bullshit. It's the modern version of '50s McCarthyites seeing a Commie under every bed. It's the same mania that recently led college students to mistake a priest with rosary beads for a KKK member with a whip. [breitbart.com]
Fighting Supremacists (Score:2)
In the fight against supremacists, choosing one's battles is as important as it is in any other war. I would suggest that the kind of supremacists that are currently imposing social theories from central government, regardless of how benign or "beneficial" we might, personally, believe those theories to be, are far more dangerous than "hate" groups. After all, "hate" is the emotion of the powerless.
Toward this end, I would suggest that sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them [sortocracy.org]
Required comment (Score:2)
I've skimmed through all one-hundred-and-something comments; I'm surprised no one has made one joke about whether these guys should be considered black-hat or white-hat hackers...I thought the KKK had priority when it comes to white hats...
What the hell IS hate speech? (Score:2)
Those without maturity worry most about what others say about them. Experience proves that it is often simplest to let the hate-filled mind vent until their folly is self-evident to all. Repression of speech will often serve as validation to some audiences.
Re: (Score:1)
Terrorists, yes. "Arm of the Democratic Party" means you're insane. It's like saying white Americans are slave owners today, because different white people hundreds of years ago in the same geographic region did own slaves. They are very clearly not aligned with the modern Democratic Party.
Re: (Score:2)
How young are you? When I was young, the Democrats were the ones who (literally) didn't want me going to school with their children.
My point is that it was not "hundreds" of years ago. Hell, when I was a kid there were still people alive who could remember bits and pieces of the American Civil War. It wasn't that long ago that they were rolling out the red carpet for Strom and the other guy - both avowed KKK members. I think one was Grand Wizard at one point. This was, what, in the 2000s?
There are still a t
Re: (Score:2)
By "not so long ago", you mean half a century
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also:
Who redefines words - and promulgates the revised meanings through media and educational institutions - so Constitutional provisions and the debates that went into their construction seem to say something different than - and often the opposite of - what they actually said? The left.
Who came up with the concept of "code words" and used it to redefine the meaning of ordinary words spoken by anyone arguing a position they disagree with, so they can edit their arguments even as they're being uttered, lea
Re: (Score:2)
It should be interesting when one of their number goes to the federal pen and they learn that one of the first things a new inmate will face is people looking into the charges to see if they're "solid." When they find out what they are convicted for they will surely let the guys on G-Block know about it. Who are the guys on G-Block? Well, I don't really know but, in my head, that's where they house the confirmed members of the Aryan Nation or Aryan Brotherhood. In other words, the prison gang that's the equ
Re: (Score:2)
The KKK is mostly a paper tiger. ISIS can fight back and are deadly if they find out who you are. So, I suppose it really does depend on your priorities. Anonymous went after the Sinaloa Cartel (Mexican drug gang - with ties into all sorts of things, including military and politics) and, quietly, decided that they'd no longer be interested in attacking that target. Rumor was that a couple of someones disappeared but we'll never really know 'cause anonymity is a funny thing like that.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how these stories always bring out the racists.