Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Begins Publishing Ku Klux Klan Member Details Online

An anonymous reader writes: Anonymous has begun releasing the personal details of members of the Ku Klux Klan, escalating its cyberwar against the white supremacist group. Last week the hacktivist group promised to reveal the identity of 1,000 members of the KKK after getting possession of the private information through a compromised Twitter account. A press release from Anonymous reads in part: "After closely observing so many of you for so very long, we feel confident that applying transparency to your organizational cells is the right, just, appropriate and only course of action. You are abhorrent. Criminal. You are more than extremists. You are more than a hate group. You operate much more like terrorists and you should be recognized as such. You are terrorists that hide your identities beneath sheets and infiltrate society on every level. The privacy of the Ku Klux Klan no longer exists in cyberspace. You’ve had blood on your hands for nearly 200 years. You continue to inflict civil rights violations, commit violent crimes and solicit others to commit violent criminal acts. You seek to intimidate and/or eliminate those that are different from you and those that you dislike by any means possible. You seek to terrorize anyone and anything that you feel is a threat to your narrow view of the 'American way of life'."

306 of 546 comments (clear)

  1. Rednecks Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The names of a thousand hateful red necks. Sounds like the best reading list for the winter. The real fun will be to see who gets wrongly targeted. I hope no one has the same name as me or signed me up. Vigilantes for the win!

    1. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Funny

      The real fun will be to see how many of these people are active politicians.

    2. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      and active law enforcement officials too.

    3. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure there's no possibility that there will be any names released who aren't actually KKK members.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by nwf · · Score: 2

      The real fun will be to see how many of these people are active politicians.

      Or match with Ashley Maddison accounts who were looking for a non-white girl to hook up with. That would be seriously funny.

      --
      I don't know, but it works for me.
    5. Re: Rednecks Anonymous by hesiod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anonymous isn't a set group of people who will learn from mistakes, because it's most likely not the same people. Also, since the list was disseminated to others, any individual can add names, claim it's the unedited original, and spread it under the umbrella of "Anonymous."

    6. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      And only rednecks do high-fives...

      Fight for your bitcoins!

    7. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do we get to make fun of the ultraliberal Democrats on the list like the mayor of Knoxville or do we just get to hate the Republicans?

    8. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      Well they did try to prove each members' membership to the clan by gathering DNA evidence, but they found it was all the same.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And only rednecks do high-fives...

      Oh, nerds do high-fives though. However, they are frequently uncoordinated and miss, and the nerds afterwards pause to push their glasses back up the ridge of the nose.

    10. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      Nope. The new KKK accepts blacks and all people of colour as members of its organization.

    11. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by BradMajors · · Score: 1

      And how many of the members are black.

      Black Chicago Men Start KKK Chapter, Cite Declining Culture:

      http://www.thenewsnerd.com/loc...

    12. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by sjames · · Score: 2
    13. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Well the list so far has included several prominent senators and congressmen. Want to guess which party they belong to ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    14. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by Mike+Frett · · Score: 1

      I don't know if it's the same old KKK, but if it is, Anonymous just dug it's grave for at least a few members. The KKK has/had links to various questionable and legal organizations that could "Take care" of people. And it's well known that some Politicians and Law Enforcement are members. Anonymous is feeling like the masters of the virtual universe it seems and now real life threatens to literally, burn down their Tree House.

      You know what they say about playing with fire and I know I am inviting a joke here =p

    15. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by left00coaster · · Score: 1

      All members of the KKK are racist. Hopefully the list will be accurate.

    16. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by rhazz · · Score: 1

      This article is related to the bogus release, not at all tied to Anonymous' data.

    17. Re:Rednecks Anonymous by megaronic · · Score: 1

      This ain't your lucky day.
      Even on /. there's several people with the same name as you.

  2. Ob by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    The crux of the matter comes down to this: is it a burning issue?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Ob by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Kkknock it off!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  3. What's with the .ru accounts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looking at the Pastebin data, seems almost all the E-mail addresses in the pre-release come from a Russian site. It would be interesting to have some confirmation before people listed in the data get the dogs of war sicced on them.

    1. Re: What's with the .ru accounts? by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      You mean an anonymous hacker site if not the gold standard of reliability to be used in developing a list of people to persecute?

    2. Re: What's with the .ru accounts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apparently not.

      They listed a fax number used by the Disability Department or a testing service, which helps students with disabilities arrange for accommodations for their testing.

      http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2015/11/nj_testing_company_fax_line_in_anonymous_kkk_revea.html

    3. Re: What's with the .ru accounts? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the Ku Klux Klan?

    4. Re: What's with the .ru accounts? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Of course that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't listed in the KKK database. Either because the KKK got the number wrong or one of their members used a work number for something.

      No doubt all will become clear in the days ahead.

    5. Re: What's with the .ru accounts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My father was a member of Southern Christian Identity.

      I disagreed with him to the point I was evicted with an 8 hour notice.

      Yet, what if my name is listed there? Does it list my specific disagreements with my ex-father and my efforts to help women and minorities make progress? Or does it just list that the son of a bigot must be a bigot as well?

      I don't care anymore. How can you know I hate women? Look at the gender I was assigned at birth. The actual gender of my body parts and medical opinions of my doctors doesn't count for shit. How can you know I'm racist? Look at my skin color.

      I guess I'll go and check. It will be interesting if I'm listed. It would not be the first time in my life I've been accused of sexism due to my assigned gender and my talents. Might be the first time I've been seriously accused of racism.

      I don't care anymore. If you really don't want me in this world, humans, come for me. I am a homeowner because of the sacrifices I've made. Getting my address would be trivial. Just kill me.

      If I can't get a viable plan together to leave the man's world by 2018, I will look forward to the next life. Avoid major cities starting around 2019. If you don't have a spare gas can, the walk to the gas station will be for your own good.

      UNLESS

    6. Re: What's with the .ru accounts? by KGIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      A buddy and I were going to go to one of their rallies. We were too drunk to drive and unable to actually figure out how to make the pointy hats with sheets - and his girlfriend, at the time, was not impressed with what we did to the linen. It is at this point that I should also share that I'm mixed, racially, and that one of those mixes is black and my friend, whom I was in the Corps with, was so black his nickname was "The Grape Ape" 'cause he was almost purple black - from the Dominican Republic by heritage. We were late to our Klan meeting.

      This is probably for the best. We were in Virginia at the time. We'd probably have been lynched or at least had a good brawl on our hands.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  4. Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One anonymous criminal organization exposing another. For transparency no less!

    1. Re: Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Came to say just that. While I applaud the effort, "the ironing is delicious."

    2. Re: Irony by halivar · · Score: 4, Funny

      the ironing is delicious

      I feel this comment left me a little flat.

    3. Re: Irony by N1AK · · Score: 4, Funny

      I felt pressed to respond and let off some steam.

    4. Re: Irony by halivar · · Score: 2

      As long as you don't get hot under the collar...

    5. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Time for our bi-yearly reminder:

      Anonymous is a generic group-heading that refers to multiple cells of groups.
      Many of these groups hate each other, but they all fall under the same heading of Anonymous since it is where their roots began.
      Occasionally they work with each other for a common goal, but it is rare.

      There is no singular Anonymous group and hasn't been since 2006.

    6. Re: Irony by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to claim that Anonymous is sanctioned by the government? Because if not, then there is no comparison.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    7. Re:Irony by Solandri · · Score: 3, Funny

      One anonymous criminal organization exposing another. For transparency no less!

      I like how you made it a trifecta by posting that as anonymous coward.

    8. Re: Irony by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Actually, I do. But then I'm not in favor of capital punishment.

      P.S.: I don't consider government approval to be a moral sanction.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Irony by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You cannot accurately assert that anymore than any particular Anonymous group can claim to speak for all anonymous groups.

      You don't know the particular members of this group. They may all be following a consistent moral standard. It may even be a laudable moral standard.

      OTOH, some reports have questioned the accuracy of some of the data. If those are accurate then the posting group is at minimum criminally reckless.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    10. Re:Irony by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      But I do think there's an Anonymous Coward group on Slashdot, they keep posting crap every single day!

      Fight for your bitcoins!

    11. Re: Irony by theCzechGuy · · Score: 2

      I am board with your puns.

    12. Re: Irony by Spaham · · Score: 2

      yeah, don't leave it on a back burner

    13. Re: Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Jeez, people. Enough of the puns. Don't we have more pressing matters?

    14. Re:Irony by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      How is Anonymous a "criminal organization"?

    15. Re:Irony by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Google Slashdot and trolltalk.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    16. Re:Irony by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      they can't stop, it must get tiring for them to pass the single brain cell around at such speed to get all the crap posts posted. then again, it could just be one of them stuck in a smelly basement cutting and pasting like mad.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    17. Re: Irony by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, we need to strike while the iron is hot.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    18. Re: Irony by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Mainly because he's pseudonymous not anonymous.

      You might not know his/her other identities, but you can draw together all posts under the name U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M and use that to draw conclusions on credibility, reliability and consistency, and engage in conversation on those grounds.

  5. Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are no journalistic controls in place. They can put whoever they want on that list.

    1. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this concept that this is an unbiased dump of information makes me wonder. We know Anonymous has political bias. It shows in just about everything they do. Now we're going to have the whole "It said it one the internetz..." crowd beating this one to death.
       
      Just like most other controversies of this era, we'll never know the truth.
       
      I'm really just starting to wonder if Anonymous isn't just a tool for some established political entity.

    2. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by thaylin · · Score: 2

      What specific journalistic controls are you speaking about?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    3. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by sycodon · · Score: 2

      I have documents that show you are not only a member of the KKK, but also a pedophile.

      What controls do you think should have been applied to that statement?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    4. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by thaylin · · Score: 1

      What controls are there?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    5. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering the access that Anonymous appears to have to government and corporate data, and the kind of people they go after and the agenda they appear to serve, Anonymous does indeed seem to be heavily influenced by a political entity.

      Not unlike the Occupy Wall Street people. That was a full-blown astroturf campaign.

    6. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Primate+Pete · · Score: 1

      And how do we know this is really Anonymous?

    7. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Nexus7 · · Score: 2

      > We know Anonymous has political bias...

      So does the KKK.

    8. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Reputable" journalists require two independent confirmations before publishing information.

    9. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Now now, there's no evidence he's in the KKK.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    10. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Coren22 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because they wore Guy Fawkes masks and everything! They must be the very same Anonymous...

      I'm wondering when the Black Panthers leak is coming, as they are just as much a hate group.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Frankly, so does any group of people.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    12. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by WhiplashII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are aware that almost all KKK members were democrats, right? And that the "party of Lincoln", also known as Republicans, fought a civil war to end slavery?

      Please go ahead and continue to shout the lie...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    13. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by bug1 · · Score: 1

      Victims can use defamation law to (try to) prosecute a publisher.

      Ofc the point behind anonymous is that arent accountable if they arent identifiable. Which itself is needed because whatever "controls" you can think of that are intended to protect people can also be abused and used to persecute people.

      Maybe people shouldnâ(TM)t be judged based on which lists they are on, and we should only judge people we know.

    14. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by IceAgeComing · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're misquoting and hiding behind historical details.

      The Southern establishment switched from Democrat to Republican in the 1960's in response to the Democratic President Lyndon Johnson (Texas) supporting Civil Rights. The parent post was not about party affiliation 50 years ago. It was about today's party affiliations.

    15. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Informative

      Robert Bird was a democrat and KKK member. One of the more famous cases of liberal bias against their own hate. He got a pass for being KKK because he was a good liberal.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thanks for showing that you've listened to the political rhetoric from the Left labeling Republicans as racist. One more tool they use to own minority votes without actually helping them with policies.

    17. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I don't know about currently, but in the 1980's the Black Panthers were much less a hate group than a mutual protection society. This, of course, is not how they were depicted in the media, but I lived in an area where they were operating.

      Of course, it's possible that what was true about the local group was not true of other chapters, but the media lied frequently enough when I had information that I don't believe them about when I don't have information.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, that lets out Associated Press.

      (I'm sure they prefer to have two independent confirmations, but they've published stories and photos without that requirement.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    19. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      You mean the same journalistic control the other journalists use in 2015, which is "I've read about it on the Internet"?

      Fight for your bitcoins!

    20. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      There are no journalistic controls in place.

      Yeah, it would have been so much better if they cited "sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity" or "top officials".

      Journalistic integrity today is a joke. The real journalists seem to be confined to a handful of organizations, like Vice News, or Brian Krebs (who had too much integrity for the Washington Post to keep around). Journalist ethics went out the door when everyone started re-reporting stories based on information from anonymous unverifiable sources as being factual information.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    21. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      Which ex-KKK politicians would you like them to forgive?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    22. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      any decent student of American history = no true scotsman

    23. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by iceaxe · · Score: 1

      You are aware that political parties change over time, right?

      Civil rights act, "Southern Strategy", etc.

      While not particularly a fan of either party, I can recognize that the current Republican party has struggled to appeal to any kind of racial or social minority due to its stated and implied "conservative" goals of maintaining the unfair privileges enjoyed by those already unfairly privileged, while the Democratic party has enjoyed strong minority support possibly due to making unlikely promises of righting past wrongs.

      Then politicians of both parties proceed to pander almost entirely to wealthy and corporate campaign donors in their actual activities in office.

      I tend to blame this mostly on a fundamentally flawed system of elections.

      In any case, your statements, while largely true, are correctly cast in the past tense.

      --
      WALSTIB!
    24. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Dahan · · Score: 1

      If you look back then, the Democrats were mostly southerners, hence the term 'Dixiecrats".

      "Mostly"? Hardly. Dixiecrats were small, short-lived splinter group off the main Democratic party. They were only around for one year: 1948.

    25. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by meglon · · Score: 1

      I am aware that, regardless of what party name they chose, the KKK was, and is, a conservative organization, and Lincoln's republican party was liberal. I'm sorry, but seriously, only a complete fucking idiot would compare today's GOP to that during Lincoln's time, or even from the civil rights era of the 60's, and suggest they're even remotely the same. You have to just be trolling us, right; no one can be this completely fucking stupid.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    26. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Not unlike the Occupy Wall Street people. That was a full-blown astroturf campaign.

      Occupy Wall Street was not astroturf, as reflected by their lack of a coherent message, lack of any organization, outright hostility towards affecting any sort of political change, and lack of any sort of clue as to how people would react to them. Barney Frank's assessment of the occupy crowd was pretty enlightening. To say he was pessimistic would be an understatement.

      The Tea Party Movement, from the start, had support from Americans for Prosperity, and the first major event, the Taxpayer March on Washington, was organized by the Heartland Institute, the aforementioned Americans for Prosperity, Freedomworks, and others. They were heavily promoted by and supported by Fox News commentators, Glenn Beck in particular.

    27. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > And how do we know this is really Anonymous?

      It doesn't matter, is literally the point. If they claim to be Anonymous and are doing something that Anonymous would do, then they are Anonymous. Would Anonymous screw with the KKK? Absolutely. So they are doing that.

      I don't think we lose much by assuming they are the same group, because they are generally acting in the same fashion. In general, after the feds tracked down the original crew, we haven't seen the same vigor as before, but they still do hacktivist stuff here and there to stay relevant and scare their potential foes.

    28. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by jdeisenberg · · Score: 4, Informative

      a) It's Robert Byrd. b) If you look at his voting record from 1968 onwards, you'll see that he was hardly voting the Klan agenda: He voted in support of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. In 2003-2004 he had a 100% "pro" voting record from the NAACP, and in 2005 proposed additional funding for the Martin Luther King Jr Memorial.

    29. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by TimSSG · · Score: 2
      Ha Ha Ha; now that was very funny.
      Filled with lies but funny!
      Tim S.

      So I have no skin in this game and do not for a second trust anything Anonymous puts out unless it comes with a huge amount of independently verifiable sources...

      But I do just really need to say that the Republican party that Abraham Lincoln was a member of has nearly nothing in common with the GOP of today. Any decent student of American history will tell you pretty readily that the Republican Party of Lincoln's time more closely resembles the Democrats of today and that the Whig party much more closely resembled today's Republicans.

    30. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Just as much? Just as much?! And this gets modded to +5 Insightful?

      Obviously some seriously racist shitbag has modpoints today. I'm just going to point out that in terms of actual victims, even if the Panthers were the violent group they were portrayed as being, they can't stand in the shadow of decades of lynchings.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    31. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by martin-boundary · · Score: 1
      True, but it's easy enough to test.

      1) Tell your best friend (must be black!) that you bought a used TV on ebay from some guy, and would he mind going to the guy's house to pick it up for you?

      2) Wait for your friend to return.

    32. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Would that be Barney Frankly or Benjamin Frankly ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    33. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Now that is a convincing argument. Saying you renounce or support something is meaningless, and doubly-so if you're a politician.

      Actually DOING something to stand by the statement -over a long period - that carries weight.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    34. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      If there's one thing you can depend on reactionary right wingers for, it's the false equivalence fallacy. Every time.

      "I once saw a black woman call a white woman a bitch, so there is an equal amount of racism from black and white people."

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    35. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Lets start with the four mentioned ... Mkay?

      http://www.mediaite.com/online...

      As the article suggested, if just having your name and email address on a "free to sign up" website database, then Barack Obama was trying to cheat on his wife at Ashley Madison.

      But it is much easier to get people to spread the lies, than it is to actually verify them. Just accuse, and disseminate the lies and as Harry Reid says about his lying "It worked".

      This is why I can't stand many progressives, they don't care about the truth, only the narrative they are promoting. "It was a YouTube Video"

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    36. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Unless he was involved in a lynching, then nothing he says fixes that. Guilty by association and all that.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    37. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      If he was, then he should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
      And you know what, if he was charged, convicted, sentenced and afterward spend decades genuinely atoning.... that would STILL carry a lot of weight.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    38. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      genuinely atoning.... that would STILL carry a lot of weight.

      Maybe.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    39. Re:Who is to say that this "list" is legit at all? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Carrying weight is not the same "convincing" - it's just a step in that process. In the end, how convincing it is - and how deserving somebody is of a second chance largely comes down to how sincere their remorse it. Since we haven't yet developed mind-reading technology, gauging that is by necessity a subjective thing. Some are more easily convinced, some less easily - but there is a point where the majority of people would feel that it really does look like the efforts are sincere.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  6. Hurray for suppressing dissent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We should never allow people with unpopular opinions to have any privacy at all.

    1. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by thaylin · · Score: 1

      If you want privacy dont be a politician.. seriously.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by TWX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What are the odds that those published will end up losing their jobs and such? You think that will end up causing more problems?

      This might be a better way to deal with things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Those with whom we choose to associate say a lot about our character and about our choices. Choices are one thing that an employee can be judged-on. I see no reason for any employer to be compelled to retain anyone that is affiliated with an organization like this.

      As to your point about dialogue, that only works when the group being addressed is either well enough organized or small enough to be cohesive and for its members to operate as a single voice. Look at the fragmentation of the IRA during The Troubles, there were an uncountable number of splinter groups such that establishing a dialogue with one was no sure means to deal with all, an if anything could incite violence by the others.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      These aren't politicians. But politician or not, outing somebody for stating any opinion at all definitely a chilling effect on free speech.

      I myself hold the opinion that people cannot come anywhere close to changing their biological sex at any point past conception. It's an unpopular opinion, but there's zero justification to try to get me fired over it or have people showing up my house and harass me over it.

    4. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      fair enough points

      but using that same logic, we should not be applauding obama for wanting to remove the box asking if job seekers are criminals or not correct? I mean its another way to judge character right?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

      We should never allow people with unpopular opinions to have any privacy at all.

      Although I agree with you that this isn't a case where the violation of privacy is warranted, handwaving it away as an "unpopular opinion" is disingenuous and, frankly, betrays your credibility. You cannot behave as though free speech is more important than the safety of lots of people, then turn around and suddenly it's just a few inconsequential mutterings and any response shows just how petty one side is.

      Either free speech is powerful or it isn't, pick one and stick with it, you don't get to have your cake and eat it, too.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re: Hurray for suppressing dissent by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Uhh that seems unrelated. These ppl are assholes who harrass/intimidate/etc others using their privacy.

    7. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      And the difference between that and the 50s with keeping anyone who didn't have a hard right wing imperialist streak from working in many fields is....what exactly?

      Remember boys and girls that your views may be mainstream NOW but that does NOT mean they will be mainstream in the future, and those same weapons you applaud being used against those you don't agree with can be easily used on you. If free speech is to be anything but an echo chamber mockery of the word we MUST protect the right of those we do not agree with to speak, otherwise your only freedom is the "freedom" to agree with the majority on everything.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    8. Re: Hurray for suppressing dissent by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uhh that seems unrelated. These ppl are assholes who harrass/intimidate/etc others using their privacy.

      Why? It's one thing if they're a terrorist organization, but it's a whole other thing if they're just groveling among themselves about how much they hate x. Unless you can prove somebody has done something beyond simply being bigoted, then doxing them is an evil thing to do.

    9. Re: Hurray for suppressing dissent by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Using that logic, unless you can prove that it's an evil thing to do, it's just a harmless prank - as everyone knows what a socially responsible organisation the KKK are, the response towards leaning the members' names will be nothing but positive.

    10. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > I mean its another way to judge character right?

      Except of course that the entire motivation for removing it is that it isn't, at least, not anymore.
      The vast majority of people in the US with criminal records have them for minor drug offenses - and there is a clear and massive racial bias in that (African Americans are convicted of minor drug offenses at a much higher rate despite proof that proof that Caucasians commit them no less frequently).
      So if whether you have a criminal record or not is most often merely indicative of whether your were fortunate enough to be born white or black (or if you want to be charitable: middle class or working class) then it's no indication of character at all.

      The other consideration is that a released criminal has been punished for his crime, he has paid his debt to society and ideally we WANT him to earn an honest living now - making that harder, or near impossible, is harmful to everybody (including the potential employer). On the other hand - the names revealed as KKK members have not in any way made up for it.
      If one of them were to forswear his allegiance to them in the future, and publicly and repeatedly apologize and undertake restitutionary actions of some sort or other (maybe provide police information voluntarily on the more criminal elements gleaned while an insider or something) then that would show up in the google as well - and likely help rather than hinder an application for a job.
      Hell the world basically forgave Albert Speer and he was at one point one of the most powerful NAZI leaders in the German government - but he appologized and seemed to show real remorse for the rest of his days.
      True or not ? I guess we'll never know - but people are suckers for a redemption story.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    11. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I myself hold the opinion that people cannot come anywhere close to changing their biological sex at any point past conception. It's an unpopular opinion, but there's zero justification to try to get me fired over it or have people showing up my house and harass me over it.

      I doubt that anyone would care about your reactionary opinions, unless you started calling for transgendered people to be lynched or something.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    12. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I see no reason for any employer to be compelled to retain anyone that is affiliated with an organization like this.

      Employers should not be able to use aspects of a person's private life to fire them. Otherwise they might start getting rid of atheists/Christians, people who have children out of wedlock, people who join gay rights protests (but are not actually gay, since that is protected) etc. Only when their decisions make their position untenable should employers be able to act.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by TWX · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between having a 'streak' and paying dues and participating in rank-structure in an organization that has actively engaged in bloodshed against other people.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    14. Re: Hurray for suppressing dissent by Triklyn · · Score: 2

      and, it's troubling that it makes use of the "200 years" line.

      Unless you've got some highlanders under them there hoods, we generally, in the civilized world, don't hold people responsible for the sins of their fathers. Probably a vanishingly small fraction of the membership has ever taken part in a lynching. And there are laws to go after those people... you know the ones against murder.

      This is a troubling thing, going after americans for their associations.

    15. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      the KKK is at liberty to hold parades, rallies, as is any group of americans with any common opinion or belief.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      free speech is more important than the potential safety of potential victims. either you're telling your people to go kill those black people over there. or you're free to say whatever you want.

      Saying "i hate black people and think they should all get hanged" isn't actually enough to warrant restricting their first amendment rights.

      I find it troubling that a non-governmental entity is trying to do something that we won't allow our government to do to us.

    16. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      and if this were 50 years ago, and this were the nascent civil rights movement being exposed?

      would your opinion still be the same? flip the viewpoints, if your opinion remains the same then i've got nothing to say. If it changes, you should ask yourself why it changed?

      your take on the matter should be exactly the same regardless of the view of those being exposed; otherwise you're not really considering the heart of the issue.

    17. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      don't agree with amijojo much, but this will do.

    18. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Saying "i hate black people and think they should all get hanged" isn't actually enough to warrant restricting their first amendment rights.

      Are you describing that as an opinion or as a threat?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    19. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i think it can't constitute a threat, unless there are actual black people who can be hanged in the immediate vicinity that could possibly be hanged, or in previous speech I have actually described a specific individual or specific individuals that the listener could track down and hang.

      everything else is simply opinion.

      It'd be a stretch to interpret any of it as actual intent, and a judge would laugh the prosecution out of court.

    20. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Okay, so you're saying until people have actually been killed in very specific circumstances, the speech has no real power to it. Right?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    21. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by TWX · · Score: 1

      The nacent civil rights movement was seeking to end dissimilar treatment of people based on something outside of their control (ie, race).

      This group was seeking to use both violence and systemic structure to perpetuate and even increase the dissimilar treatment of people based on something outside of the control of the targeted people.

      Judge people for their actions, their choices. How people behave and who they freely associate with are actions and choices.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    22. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by TWX · · Score: 1

      If the group in question hadn't ever used violence then I might agree with you, but this group has used violence and does not believe against the use of violence.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    23. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      yes, but now you're making a judgement call based on your own moral grounding. Who's to say that 50 years from now, you won't be in the moral minority?

      the rightness of an act is not predicated on who it happens to. Does me murdering a baby differ from me murdering someone on death row? Regardless i'm still guilty of killing someone.

      The majority of these people are most likely all talk. Judge them by their associations? judge them by who they're seen with? Let me never live in an america like that. Guilt by association.

    24. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      nah, i pretty much agree with the supreme court on this one.

      intent, imminence and likelihood.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/we...
      The standard developed determined that speech advocating the use of force or crime could only be proscribed where two conditions were satisfied: (1) the advocacy is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action,” and (2) the advocacy is also “likely to incite or produce such action.”

      it's got power. but at a certain point, you're robbing the actual perpetrator of their responsibility too.

      If i say black people should die and 3 years later one of the listeners killed a black person? does that mean that I am guilty of inciting the listener to violence?

    25. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Before I continue I want to say that our opinions aren't that different.

      If i say black people should die and 3 years later one of the listeners killed a black person? does that mean that I am guilty of inciting the listener to violence?

      An argument could be made either way, but that's not what we're talking about. It's a question of do we allow the rights of individuals to be violated. Remember, we're talking about minimizing an expression of speech as "just an opinion". What happens when "just an opinion" means "I ain't gonna hire you.", not because the person saying that is behaving as a bigot, but because they don't want trouble from the locals who have subscribed to that nonsense?

      It's powerful enough that it isn't an issue of restricting first amendment rights, rather it becomes an issue of protecting the rights of minorities. You have to minimize the impact of it quite a bit to fit it in a box labeled 'opinion'.

         

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    26. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      That's where it gets tricky, and people a lot more qualified about it have to think deep thoughts on those fringes.

      hiring and firing. When does a employer's right to do with his money what he wants, trump vs get trumped by a employee's right to a livelihood? How do you enforce the equal opportunity employment of minorities? even bad people have rights,

      i hate the power of the twitter mob, on things like donald sterling and brendan eich. but i don't know if governmental protection is the answer to each individual user exercising his or her right of association and speech. when do the rights of the oppressed trump those of the oppressor. when does good taste and the moral majority, become oppressive with their good intent?

      donald sterling lost half a billion in the forced sale of his team, due solely to an illegally recorded private conversation.

      brendan eich lost his job due to a political opinion.

      because these fringe cases are... difficult. I tend to err on the side of more freedom. I don't like it, but those organizing a digital lynch mob against sterling and eich, were well within their rights.

      and hate speech must be protected, unless they're actively calling for someone's head.

    27. Re: Hurray for suppressing dissent by weweedmaniii · · Score: 1

      and, it's troubling that it makes use of the "200 years" line.

      Yes 200 years, since the klan was formed after the Civil War which ended 150 years ago. Either someone is really bad at math 150=200 or They were busy texting someone during History class the day they covered the end of the Civil War.

      Unless you've got some highlanders under them there hoods, we generally, in the civilized world, don't hold people responsible for the sins of their fathers. Probably a vanishingly small fraction of the membership has ever taken part in a lynching. And there are laws to go after those people... you know the ones against murder.

      This is a troubling thing, going after americans for their associations.

      --
      "If stupid things work...then they are not stupid."
    28. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between having a 'streak' and paying dues and participating in rank-structure in an organization that has actively engaged in bloodshed against other people.

      That's an awfully loose definition you're using, you sure your own neck isn't gonna get caught in that rope?

      If someone published a database with the name, address, and photo of everyone who has ever been an abortion doctor in the US, you'd be cool with that? After all, nearly half of the country believes that a fetus is a human life and an abortion, done when the mothers life is not in danger, is murder. Therefore abortion doctors are "actively engaged in bloodshed against other people" from their point of view.

      Heck, what about people who have simply donated to or are members of a pro-choice organisation? By your loose standards, those people are "paying dues and participating in rank-structure in an organization that has actively engaged in bloodshed against other people".

      Are you gonna be OK when people get fired or passed over for promotion at work because a pro-life supervisor or owner found out that someone made regular donations to a pro-choice group? Oh the "official" reason won't be that, but if a supervisor/owner has any brains and patience, they'll get rid of them one way or another.

      Hairyfeet is right, there is a very good chance that a view you think is popular and not going anywhere today is going to be unpopular, potentially VERY unpopular, 10 or 20 years from now.

    29. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

      Judge them by their associations? judge them by who they're seen with? Let me never live in an america like that. Guilt by association.

      Well said.

    30. Re:Hurray for suppressing dissent by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      What amazes me is how few here actually remember their history as this has happened before and in our VERY recent past...remember the 1980s?

      Everything the current progressive movement holds dear would have been right at home in the 70s, women's rights, gay rights, acceptance and talk of decriminalizing drugs...then came the 80s and the hard right shift. After 1980 if you held those views you were considered a fool at best and at worst a possible threat to this country as your views could be seen to be helping the USSR. I mean for fuck's sake we had actual witch hunts in the 80s with the whole "satanic cult" bullshit that ended up with people actually DYING from what was nothing but mass insanity stirred up by a couple of quack shrinks pushing their BS book.

      So these kids need to seriously wake the fuck up, as those weapons they are more than happy to hand out to be used against those they do not like can be easily used against them, and culture shifts? They can happen as fast as you can snap your fingers, just compare the popular views of 78 to 81, it doesn't even look like the same country.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  7. Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh wait... we hates the KKK so it's just "publishing" informaiton.

    Information we don't even have decent proof as to the nature of the source.

    Like Dan Rather's proof that Bush got preferential treatment - Until the documents were proved as forgeries - That's ok, he said, the documents are fake but what they said is true!

    So which is it? Do Slashdot's editors now agree that doxxing is good?

    1. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Much as I loathe the KKK and all that they stand for, this action is not one I can support.

      I'm not from the US so I don't know much about the legal status of the KKK. We dinhave a similar situation here though, where there was a leak of data from the British National Party, a gang of similar right-wing racist toe-rags.

      The rub is, that much as I also despise the BNP, they are recognised as a legitimate political party, and while being a BNP member may be frowned upon, it's a legitimate although unwholesome aspect of democracy.

      By all means prosecute KKK members who commit crimes. Not having been brought up under the US constitution, I also see a case for prosecutions under incitement and hate speech laws - I appreciate many Americans will disagree on this. But anon outing them just because they're an easy and unpopular target feels a bit cheap.

  8. a real false flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The data in this one makes no sense.

    This isn't Anon, this is someone else trying to discredit Anonymous before the real data comes out.

    1. Re:a real false flag by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      http://www.politicususa.com/20...

      4 US senators named so far, yet no denials or complaints by the senators in question yet. If this was fake, why wouldn't someone whose name is on it expose it as a fake?

    2. Re:a real false flag by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      sometimes its better to ignore things like this. say something like im not wasting my time with an answer to such a bs claim

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    3. Re: a real false flag by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Why should anybody dignify these people by responding to them. Random trash accusations on the internet don't need to be acknowledged. Or do you think President Obama should have to respond to every crank birther?

    4. Re: a real false flag by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He did respond to them. He answered where he was born and all that on many many occasions. That may not have been the best example.

    5. Re:a real false flag by schneidafunk · · Score: 1
      --
      Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    6. Re:a real false flag by hondo77 · · Score: 1
      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    7. Re:a real false flag by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      http://www.politicususa.com/20...

      4 US senators named so far, yet no denials or complaints by the senators in question yet. If this was fake, why wouldn't someone whose name is on it expose it as a fake?

      No doubt they feel caught between the iron and the board.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    8. Re:a real false flag by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Having had a little more time, all the mayors named have denied it, and it died there with that, but I've still not seen a senator deny it. Why wouldn't they deny it if it isn't true?

    9. Re:a real false flag by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Having had a little more time, all the mayors named have denied it, and it died there with that, but I've still not seen a senator deny it. Why wouldn't they deny it if it isn't true?

      Because to deny the KKK would be to lose white racist votes?

      Not saying that is the case, just saying it's a possible reason for a politician.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    10. Re:a real false flag by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Lose the votes to whom? Democrats? Not the racist vote...

    11. Re:a real false flag by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      Lose the votes to whom? Democrats? Not the racist vote...

      How about a democratic candidate (or president as the case may be) that tries to refute the validity of his American birth certificate?

      The reality is that sheeple just don't do much fact checking. They start off with bias and eagerly swallow anything that reinforces it.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    12. Re:a real false flag by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I haven't looked at it, but it seems to be the consensus that Republicans are more likely to make up stories close to an election in order to sway it. It even has a name for it now, drawn by a recent time when the Republicans did it. "Swift boating" is used to describe an untrue personal attack (launched close enough to the election to not be refuted before the election - optional). When you want to hate the "other side" the facts don't matter. Fox News said it, so it must be true.

  9. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by TomR+teh+Pirate · · Score: 5, Informative

    The usefulness of your post notwithstanding, I heard in a news broadcast a few months ago (to my recollection) that the Klan's membership used to numbers in the millions at its peak and is now measured in tens of thousands. Happily, it's a club apparently on the decline.

  10. I look forward to the ISIS publication.... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Informative

    Oh wait, they are not doing anything to expose actual terrorists, because that might actually be dangerous?

    I don't think much of the KKK but to call them "terrorists" seems a pretty big stretch at this point because they've not really done anything, or been relevant for some time. They probably talk a lot of shit on private mailing lists, but as we all SHOULD know that doesn't mean much.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:I look forward to the ISIS publication.... by thaylin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is a terrorist?

      a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

      the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

      So are you saying that the KKK does not use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims?

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    2. Re:I look forward to the ISIS publication.... by harrkev · · Score: 1

      So are you saying that the KKK does not use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims?

      No, not as far as I know. Well, not lately.

      I find the notion of the KKK abhorrent, an I despise anybody that would join such an organization. However, if they have not broken a law, there is honestly not much that you can or should do to these people, from a legal perspective. Feel free to shun them, and call them names. But having an ideology (no matter how stupid it is) and joining a group is not, by itself illegal.

      I have not heard of any KKK violence in quite a while (things were different 40 years ago). If any members did commit any violence or break any laws, then throw them in prison.

      If this list is true, I would hope that any elected official on the list would immediately resign. Otherwise, recall efforts should be launched.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    3. Re:I look forward to the ISIS publication.... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      They do, but they're not remotely the threat that they used to be. The various non-KKK white power groups are more of a problem.

      I despise the KKK and what they stand for, but as long as they're not using violence or threat of violence, they have the right to undertake their actions anonymously. The ACLU has sided with them several times on free speech and anonymity points. Publishing this list is a form of presumed guilt, and as others have mentioned, there's little way to prove that it's accurate.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    4. Re:I look forward to the ISIS publication.... by bmo · · Score: 2

      I don't think much of the KKK but to call them "terrorists" seems a pretty big stretch

      The KKK has done some pretty bad things over the past decades. On equal with what ISIS and other terrorists have done.

      Indeed the definition of terrorism is "the use of violence is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes."

      http://withoutsanctuary.org/

      Tell me that was not violence for political purposes. Try me.

      Just because the lynchings aren't widespread anymore doesn't mean the other violence went away. And it's not just "Cletus the redneck douchebag" as a member, it's politicians and law enforcement.

      Yes, these people do need to be exposed. If this makes you uneasy, too bad.

      --
      BMO

    5. Re:I look forward to the ISIS publication.... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      The KKK is by definition a terrorist organization. The intentional try to instill fear in people for their own personal agenda.

      Which ... Ironically ... Is EXACTLY WHAT ANONYMOUS DOES. They just don't have the balls to do anything other than hide in moms basement and run scripts someone else wrote while they hide. The Internet is the silly named groups white hoods, they are just too stupid to realize how idiotic they make themselves look

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:I look forward to the ISIS publication.... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Oh wait, they are not doing anything to expose actual terrorists...

      Oh really? The only people that seems to have scared them off are the drug cartels.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    7. Re:I look forward to the ISIS publication.... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

      Of course, Noam Chomsky would point out that the vast majority of US military operations in the past 100 years fit this definition (and indeed, fails to fit the definition of anything else).

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  11. Questionable Accuracy: Include Gay, Latina Mayors by Koreantoast · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The short post of four US Senators and five US mayors includes one openly gay mayor and a older Latina woman who started her political career organizing Mexican laborers with Cesar Chavez. That alone casts a bit of doubt on the accuracy of this list.

    An alternative theory - a lot of these individuals may have signed up for these mailing lists simply to monitor these groups, and some of them may have just been signed up by other people as a prank. Just pulling information from a mailing list hardly represents membership.

  12. Dicks v Assholes? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    I'm with the dicks.

  13. Re:Seriously? by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

    They say it be as it is, comrade.

    But is not.

  14. The Reason for the Russian by Shoten · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, a lot of people have been asking about this...asking why so many of the addresses end in ".ru"

    Fundamentally...think about it. Russia is a haven for a lot of different things, including bulletproof hosting that is beyond the reach of the FBI and other Western LEOs, either via direct raids, wiretaps or by more procedural means (subpoenas, etc.). So it entirely makes sense that people who are, in the truest sense of the word, interested in the overthrow of the US Government as it exists today should use email accounts that are hosted in Russia, far from the reach of the organizations that are out to get them.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    1. Re:The Reason for the Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you saw a Black Russian other than the cocktail of vodka and coffee liqueur?
      Russia is the last great bastion of white supremacists.

    2. Re:The Reason for the Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would also mean that KKK members are extremely computer-savvy. Much more competent than most paedophiles, terrorist groups etc.

    3. Re:The Reason for the Russian by moosehooey · · Score: 1

      I think the more likely explanation is the Russian spam-bots testing website fields for spam purposes, and thus ending up on the lists.

  15. I'm not defending the Klan or anything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But being a Klansman is not inherently illegal. Being an Anonymous hacker that deals in stolen data is. While I agree that the KKK has a horrible message, they aren't the criminals here.

    1. Re:I'm not defending the Klan or anything... by shaitand · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But unlike being a criminal, being a Klan member indicates you are a bad person.

    2. Re:I'm not defending the Klan or anything... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but while that's not extremely bad, it's still bad. Bad comes in gradations as much as does good...and they aren't always even contradictory. But denigrating a group of people counts as bad. That's why these days villains normally have green skin...that doesn't hurt anybody. Polish jokes, however, are bad, and people who choose to tell them are being at least slightly bad. That may be involved in why they were replaced by elephant jokes (among the people that I knew), though if so I wasn't aware of it.

      Jokes and actions aimed at putting someone else "one down" are alway bad actions, even when there is no intention of causing injury. (And putting someone "one up" isn't the opposite, though it's usually not perceived as humor.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:I'm not defending the Klan or anything... by renderhead · · Score: 2

      Being a passive racist is not the same as joining a racist organization.

      --
      I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.

      -RenderHead

    4. Re:I'm not defending the Klan or anything... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Being a stupid and ignorant person who dislikes black people does not make you a member of a radical terrorist organization like the KKK.

      This is not a group that sits idle bitching about the guy down the street with other like minded fools.

    5. Re:I'm not defending the Klan or anything... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Since I've never heard a "yo' mama" joke that I thought even a trifle funny, I wouldn't consider that a major loss. I consider it an unfortunate weakness that I occasionally find a racially or nationality based joke to be funny. Nobody's perfect. At least I avoid telling them.

      If you want to make jokes that are less bad, tell them about your boss, or someone with equivalent power over you.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  16. You're wasting your time, the Klan is a joke by NotDrWho · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Klan as a mainstream group, even in the deep south, peaked in the 1920's. It had a brief minor resurgence in the 1960's during the civil rights movement, but for the most part it's a fringe-of-a-fringe-of-a-fringe movement and has been for most of its existence. Exposing them isn't even fighting racism, since their membership rolls today are made up of a tiny handful of disenfranchised rednecks who don't have any power to oppress or intimidate anyone. Hitting them today is like stabbing Julius Caesar several decades after his funeral. It's a pointless feel-good exercise that doesn't help anyone.

    --
    SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    1. Re:You're wasting your time, the Klan is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      More blacks are murdered by other blacks in one year, than have been killed by the KKK in its entire existence.

      See also "Worrying about the wrong problem"

    2. Re:You're wasting your time, the Klan is a joke by LaurenCates · · Score: 1

      While I'm pretty much in agreement with you (though I wouldn't discount the idea that politicians were part of the rank-and-file, they'd just be more clever at hiding it), if I were in law enforcement, I'd be very careful about a resurgence of the KKK if race is going to be a hot topic during the next year and for election season.

      Not that I advocate arresting people for thought crimes. I'm just saying that if there's going to be a resurgence of the Civil Rights Movement in the form of Black Lives Matter (we'll see if that hasn't calmed down within the next year), there IS going to be a counter-movement as a reaction.

      --
      Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
    3. Re:You're wasting your time, the Klan is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Klan as a mainstream group, even in the deep south, peaked in the 1920's. It had a brief minor resurgence in the 1960's during the civil rights movement, but for the most part it's a fringe-of-a-fringe-of-a-fringe movement and has been for most of its existence. Exposing them isn't even fighting racism, since their membership rolls today are made up of a tiny handful of disenfranchised rednecks who don't have any power to oppress or intimidate anyone. Hitting them today is like stabbing Julius Caesar several decades after his funeral. It's a pointless feel-good exercise that doesn't help anyone.

      Don't forget those Tea Party bastards.. I move that 90% of them are KKK. David Duke is a confirmed Klansman who tried to run for President and also an extreme right wing, bat shit crazy republican. You see one there are 100s more you don't see, like cockroaches!

    4. Re:You're wasting your time, the Klan is a joke by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Unless of course the 4 Republican Senators so far listed are indeed KKK members. If so the rednecks aren't quite as disenfranchised as one might hope.

    5. Re:You're wasting your time, the Klan is a joke by swb · · Score: 2

      I'm just saying that if there's going to be a resurgence of the Civil Rights Movement in the form of Black Lives Matter (we'll see if that hasn't calmed down within the next year), there IS going to be a counter-movement as a reaction.

      I think that more or less, the general intensity of racism is less than it used to be. It's debatable what the reasons are, but because of this I think the kind of open, militant racism of the 1960s or earlier Klan or any other racist groups just won't fly, regardless of whether BLM becomes an enduring phenomenon or not.

      That being said, I think that despite increased racial acceptance, racial ill-feeling hasn't gone away completely, but become more muted and coded. But I think it would take something like open warfare in the streets to go back to the racism of the past.

      Trouble is, I don't discount open warfare in the streets..

    6. Re:You're wasting your time, the Klan is a joke by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Good news! Law enforcement acts to prevent black people murdering other black people too.

      What a marvellous world in which it's possible to focus on multiple concurrent problems. Who'd have thought.

  17. Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are dark times ahead for the KKK.

    1. Re:Indeed by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

      Clayton Bigsby would have none of that!
      /I miss cheppelle show. : (

    2. Re:Indeed by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      There are dark times ahead for the KKK.

      Yes, things are looking black.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    3. Re: Indeed by hachigatsu62 · · Score: 1

      (Logged in and reposted) You know. As someone of color (You People - kkk Lowercase intentional) are a joke to me. I'm probably the worst kind of "nigger" too. I'm an immigrant that came to you country where you were born and got a great education and have my own business. Meanwhile you little kkk people are busy hating and fighting a war that exist only in your little uneducated minds. Nigger is a word my friends. Words are like pillows. They only hurt if you let them. Therefore, why would I let some coward little man hurt me with a pillow? Just saying. God wants us to love everyone. God did not say everyone except uneducated morons. ðY±

  18. First they came for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    First they came for the pedophiles. I was not a pedophile, so I did nothing.

    Then they came for the Klansmen. I was not a Klan member, so I did nothing.

    Then they came for the Anonymous Cowards who post on Slashdot.

    There was nobody left but me and my buddy CowboyNeal and we were no match for The Legion.

    What, not you too CowboyNeal. Nooooooo!!!!!!!

  19. Looks highly dubious to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    One of the supposed members is the mayor of Lexington, KY named Jim Gray who is very openly gay. While it could be true I guess, I seriously doubt this guy is a member of the KKK.

    1. Re:Looks highly dubious to me... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Let me know when you have figured out how to prove a negative.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:Looks highly dubious to me... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Why would you imagine that Klansmen can't be gay?

    3. Re:Looks highly dubious to me... by starless · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, as is the case for a mayor on the list, it will be clear that they don't belong on the list..

      It won't necessarily be clear for everyone.
      For the gay democrat most people will think his inclusion was a mistake.
      But if somebody on the list is a right-wing republican white man, but not a racist and not a member of the KKK, it will
      probably be very difficult for him to convince people that his inclusion was a mistake.

    4. Re:Looks highly dubious to me... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      So, what you're saying is as long as the accusation is "KKK" it is okay to be guilty until proven innocent.

      Accusations are all you need? I think you might be a child molester and domestic terrorist.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Looks highly dubious to me... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >right-wing republican white man, but not a racist

      That's a bit like saying "If somebody is employed by wallmart but doesn't work for for wallmart".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re:Looks highly dubious to me... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Considering they are members of a top-secret all-male society ... they may actually be MORE likely to be gay...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  20. Not dangerous? by Elfich47 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cases of arson, lynching, beatings, killings, cross burnings and voter suppression in an organized manner against a specific segment of the population? These activities have been ongoing for over a hundred years in a systematic manner? The frequency is down but it still occurs or is overlooked. I would call that terrorism at the very least.

    --
    Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    1. Re:Not dangerous? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      is it 1910 again? because it hasnt been that way in forever

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:Not dangerous? by Elfich47 · · Score: 2

      We're had cross burnings as recent as 2006 with intimidation and violations of the fair housing act. That recent enough for you?

      --
      Architectural plans are like computer source code with a couple of differences: You only compile once.
    3. Re:Not dangerous? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      we also had black churches burned down.... but oh wait, it was done by a black man trying to set up the "white man"

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Not dangerous? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      A decade ago? No, not even close to recent enough, not enough to warrant any group going after the KKK ahead of real terrorists..

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    5. Re:Not dangerous? by truck_soccer · · Score: 1

      Dylan Storm Roof? Is that name ringing a bell? Recent enough for you?

    6. Re:Not dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, but he did leave out evidence.

      200 years ago doesn't do you much good, but I'd be interested to see statistics from, say, the last 30 or so.

    7. Re:Not dangerous? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      really? he was an actual KKK member??? or was he just a sick kid who had no friends and hated everyone???

      Im serious ive never seen anywhere state he was a KKK memeber

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:Not dangerous? by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      Haven't heard much from Al Queda in a few years. Does that mean they're back on the Xmas card list?

    9. Re:Not dangerous? by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 1

      Right, and al-qaeda hasn't done anything over here since 2001. Are they also unimportant?

    10. Re:Not dangerous? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Yes, the KKK is a terrorist organization.

      They have learned to keep their profile low —their venom never went away.

      Wondering Out Loud: How did they continue to exist after that landmark legal case – the one in which they lost their headquarters and the giant estate on which it sat?

      Lots of $$$ donations from dedicated bigots? I can't think of any other explanation. Can you?

    11. Re:Not dangerous? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      I believe you may be conflating the KKK with Aryan Nation, which did have to give up its compound as the result of a court case.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    12. Re:Not dangerous? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      The KKK hasn't done anything, anywhere, for about a decade.

      Al Qaeda is in fact doing things frequently, but our media is too busy pretending they do not exist to tell you anything about them.

      Do you seriously deny that ISIS is a more worthy target to attack than the KKK at this point? If so, you are a retard. And a really stupid one at that.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    13. Re: Not dangerous? by hachigatsu62 · · Score: 1

      This person said a black man set a church on fire and try to blame a white person. This argument was raised because we are saying that there has not been an attack on blacks in many years. Here's a little controversy for you. What the Fuck are you talking about. (I'm a Christian so it's wrong for me to swear) Sarcasm. Recently a young white fellow in the south walked into a "black" church and shot and killed 10 or 11 "niggers" His friends, his own friends later said his hate for black people had grown to the point where he felt the need to kill as many of us as he could. That was this 2015 summer. People hate people. Period. If us "niggers" weren't here, people would hate people because of the color of their eyes or because of their hair color. Mankind is wicked evil and hateful. Anyone who cannot see that is blind. Look in the ghettos. "Niggers" are killing each other. That has nothing to do with white people. It's just ignorance and hate. In African Congos the black Africans are killing, raping and torturing other black men, women and children. A couple of post earlier I saw someone making the statement about Christians and religion. Again, we must first educate ourselves before we can speak knowlably about a subject. I believe there is a God. Jesus Christ is his son. I'm not concerned if anyone else believes that. I have no issues with people of the same sex getting married. The so called Christians who are bashing the gay and lesbian community best be careful. Love is the missing ingredient period. If we all loved each other regardless of sex or race we would not be having this conversation.

    14. Re:Not dangerous? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You still didn't identify them.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    15. Re:Not dangerous? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 1

      Yep, you're right.

  21. Unfortunately-- by LichtSpektren · · Score: 2, Funny

    --Anonymous also inadvertently published the identities of all the developers of the KDE Desktop. Presumably this was an error.

  22. Who? by crackspackle · · Score: 1

    You are abhorrent. Criminal. You are more than extremists. You are more than a hate group. You operate much more like terrorists and you should be recognized as such. You are terrorists that hide your identities beneath sheets and infiltrate society on every level

    Are they talking about themselves or the KKK ?

    1. Re:Who? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are abhorrent. Criminal. You are more than extremists. You are more than a hate group. You operate much more like terrorists and you should be recognized as such. You are terrorists that hide your identities beneath sheets and infiltrate society on every level

      Are they talking about themselves or the KKK ?

      The end result will be to help more people understand the importance of privacy. You go, SJWs! (You crazy selfish cowards.)

  23. Due process? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You can accuse anyone of anything. Now probably this will expose mostly a bunch of KKK shitheads, but if I were a cowardly misanthrope looking to inflict petty malice on someone without it getting back to me, I'd add their name to a list like this.

  24. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Informative

    In Freakonomics, they delve into one man's 30 year war against the KKK, where he broadcasts things like their secret rituals and so on, on radio shows, effectively turning them from a serious organization to a laughingstock few people (relatively) wanted to join, in the early part of the century.

    The vast bulk of damage to them is already long done. The point of the article was mockery, rather than outlawing, seemed to be much more productive.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  25. Re:Questionable Accuracy: Include Gay, Latina Mayo by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    Perhaps that was intentionally done by Anonymous who are simply trolling and seeing if they can get a reactionary internet crowd to send these people all kinds of hate mail because they never verified the accuracy of the list.

    It sounds like the kind of thing they would do "for the lulz" based on previous exploits.

  26. When was that again? by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cases of arson, lynching, beatings, killings, cross burnings and voter suppression in an organized manner against a specific segment of the population?....The frequency is down but it still occurs or is overlooked.

    But when was the last time any of that happened? I have not seen stories about anything like that for many years - the most recent stuff being black churches set fire to, which it turned out was not don't by the KKK at all (who would seem to have been a primary suspect).

    I'm not saying the KKK has not been a horrible organization in the past, or even that they are in any way an organization that should be supported today. I'm saying that they have become essentially irrelevant, and the resources used to combat the "terrorists" of the KKK would be far better spent on real terrorists - but they aren't because the real terrorists can bite. Attacking the KKK like this is lame because it's pretending to help people while actually helping no-one.

    The KKK is dying, why even give them the publicity these attacks grant? It can only help the KKK at this point.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:When was that again? by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Racism is alive and well. KKK is just not the most boisterous brand right now.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:When was that again? by sociocapitalist · · Score: 1

      But when was the last time any of that happened?

      It'll be interesting to see if any of the cops that killed blacks recently are on the list.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    3. Re:When was that again? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      But is racism worse than murdering people, or keeping thousands of Christians (and other non-muslims) for sex slaves? That is all happening right now. Why is anyone wasting time giving the KKK publicity instead of attacking targets that are actually doing real harm.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    4. Re:When was that again? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      keeping thousands of Christians (and other non-muslims) for sex slaves?

      Damn! That sounds like a bit of KKK "literature" right there... I'll have you know that those people are our allies in the Middle East/North Africa destabilization effort. To the point where we now have *boots on the ground*. They can have their Bacha bazi (Afghanistan, but same difference) as long as they keep their guns pointed in the right direction.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  27. Re:Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by oakgrove · · Score: 2

    So if your name shows up in this dump, will that be a public service too? Because it most certainly could. What possible mechanism do you think exists to unequivocally verify whether any of these names denote actual members of the KKK before their reputations are irreparable tarnished?

    --
    The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
  28. Re:Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by Coren22 · · Score: 2

    How is it no malicious? They intend for these people to be mobbed, it is the whole point of releasing the names.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  29. Re:its not just white people.. by shaitand · · Score: 1

    That is true. There was a time to look the other way while things corrected themselves but the time when shouting black power is political suicide just as sure as white power should be coming soon. I mean, there was a time like that before but this time it would be because people shouting black power are racist rather than because everyone else is.

  30. They have a "point" to make by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    Oh great, now their hat sewing pattern is all over Interwebs. Thanks alot.

  31. Re:Backwater racist rednecks by deKernel · · Score: 1

    As your first idiotic comment was corrected by WhiplashII above, here you go:

    You are aware that almost all KKK members were democrats, right? And that the "party of Lincoln", also known as Republicans, fought a civil war to end slavery?

    Please go ahead and continue to shout the lie... /quote.

  32. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the US the KKK is allowed to exist. You're allowed (fortunately for the time being) to still form groups and speak your mind and influence the political process by your words (so long as that's ALL you're doing and not actually trying to be a criminal organization) regardless of how stupid, insane or irrational as it may be.

    There are a few states with hate speech laws on the books but they're fortunately far and few in between because "hate speech" means whatever the political elite want it to mean at that point in time - Thaylin's comment here being a perfect demonstration of such.

    Case in point, it's an easy open and shut case to prosecute black lives matter groups for incitement and hate speech - lots of proof too - But so long as they're not committing actual crimes they shouldn't be silenced or have their ideas buried for not being approved.

    That's what being in an free society is all about.

  33. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2

    I don't like the Tea Party either, but there's plenty of legitimate stuff to complain about, we don't need to assign negative traits to them.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  34. No sheet? by Bodhammer · · Score: 1

    Really?

    --
    "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
  35. Constitution Party of South Carolina by bl968 · · Score: 1

    One of the emails in the dump is the same as the registered contact for the Constitution Party of South Carolina...

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
  36. "Redneck" is a racial slur. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The names of a thousand hateful red necks.

    "Redneck" is a racial slur. It insinuates that the target is, not just from a rural culture (especially - a poor white southern farmer), and not just sunburned on the back of his neck due to working outdoors with a short haircut, but also that he may be part American Indian. (It originates in a time where this was considered to be extremely "poor breeding", and many so-called "sundown towns" had laws requiring people with any American Indian genetics to be out of town by undown.

    It currently has an implication that the pepole it is applied to are unintelligent and uneducated. (The space program proves the lie of this: Note the accents of the people involved. A substantial fraction of real rocket scientists are, and were, rednecks.) This slur dates at least to the Scopes Monkey Trial (which was largely a propaganda piece fomented by the mining interests to brand the miners, who were trying to unionize at the time, as igorant idiots in the urban east coast's public perception.)

    Rule of thumb: If you don't self-identify as a redneck, and wouldn't use the "N" word, don't use the "R" word.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      and not just sunburned on the back of his neck due to working outdoors with a short haircut,

      That makes no sense, rednecks have mullets.

    2. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you just make all of that up? I can't find a single source that connects "redneck" with Native Americans, every definition I've seen ties it specifically to white people. Many today claim it as a badge of pride. And the Scopes Monkey Trial? That had nothing to do with unionizing miners, and everything to do with a publicity stunt to draw attention to the town of Dayton, TN. Mr. Scopes was even unsure whether he had ever taught evolution but incriminated himself anyway so that the trial could have a defendant. The miners that you're referring to were trying to unionize 5 years before Scopes and they wore red bandanas around their necks and self-identified as "rednecks" to help themselves organize and have solidarity. That label was not given to them by outside interests, they chose it.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    3. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you just make all of that up? I can't find a single source that connects "redneck" with Native Americans, every definition I've seen ties it specifically to white people.

      I got it from my wife - trained as a historian, a member of Phi Alpha Theta (the historical honor society), redneck, and raised as a part American Indian.

      I'm not where I can consult her for references right now. If I think of it before this is off the front page I'll see if she can come up with some.

      Yes, the term is used on rural whites. As I said above, the bit about insinuating American Indian admixture is one of the several allegedly derogatory slurs embedded in the package.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      1. Fuck off with your Political Censorship.
      2. Lighten up.

      **Every** word has a connotation. Ignoring the "bad" ones doesn't magically make them go away.

    5. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm sure someone, somewhere, is justifying the N word the same way.

    6. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      The progressives have been very clear about trying to destroy the roots and symbols of rural culture in America. Religion and Guns? Clearly must be suppressed.

      It's particularly significant when you realize that:
        - The country was formed by and for "religious nuts with guns".
        - The separation of church and state was both:
                  - Central to the beliefs of the Plymouth colony settlers (the "Separatists" - often conflated with the "Puritans" who settled a few tens of miles further north), and
                  - Written into the Bill of Rights by the leaders of several churches (who knew damn well that, if the government had an official church, it wouldn't be theirs, but WOULD lead to the same sort of religious suppression and/or religious wars that they came here to escape.)

      From the viewpoint of the current "religious nuts with guns", the current suppression of the same is the result of a cultural war on them by later arrivals (including "The Ellis Island Crowd"), mainly lower-class descendants of serfs, who brought the elitist/royalist values the revolutionaries were trying to escape, and, rather than assimilating into the American Pluralist culture, decided to impose them, with the only substantial change being appointing themselves to a new class of nobles.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by russotto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The space program proves the lie of this: Note the accents of the people involved.

      German?

    8. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WTF, really?

      Remember, it's not genocide if it's the enemy. The progressives have been very clear about trying to destroy the roots and symbols of rural culture in America. Religion and Guns? Clearly must be suppressed.

      I'm strongly opposed to gun control, but the arguments made by the other side are not without merit. A few gun owners have made their hobby/obsession a problem for the rest of us. Decent gun owners would be better served by reminding the rest of the population that they're not all a bunch of nutcases. Are you sure you're helping?

      Same for the "religion" half of your argument. Keep your guns out of my face and your religion as well, and we'll get along juuuuust fine.

      Deep family ties? Must financially punish marriage.

      Yeah, for definitions of "financially punish" that include "Stop subsidizing specific peoples' personal relationships at everyone else's expense." I'm all for that.

      Economy? The war on tobacco continues to destroy cash crops

      Of course, tens of thousands of cases of heart disease and cancer don't have any economic consequences at all, am I right?

      the war on coal decimating employment

      I'm not a global-warrming alarmist but you don't have to be one to recognize that digging up coal and burning it is a stupid, inefficient, wasteful, and generally harmful way to generate power. The sooner we get away from coal the better off we'll all be, and that includes the rural areas.

      and turning the education system into a proxy for the propaganda war has destroyed the education system there.

      Yeah, when we took Jeebus out of the classroom and started teaching evolution, I guess that's when things really started to go to hell, huh?

      This is exactly why sane people are starting to gang up against religion. Don't want a "propaganda war?" Don't start one.

    9. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Mr. Scopes was even unsure whether he had ever taught evolution but incriminated himself anyway so that the trial could have a defendant.

      [citation needed]

    10. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think you have any idea what it is like to work in the sun, your neck stays pretty much untanned as getting the sun on it really heats you up, pretty much the reason why you should wear a wide brimmed hat. The red neck comes from when certain people with very pale necks lose their temper and they become flushed and as a result of having those pale necks they turn bright red. It is not red neck via race but via behaviour. Please do not include the majority of pink skins in your red neck assertions because by far the majority of pink skins are not red necks, this not because of some new assertion of further variegations of pink skin race to define more shades of pink but based upon intellect and behaviour. Red neck is a behavioural classification. Me and my lilly white butt take offence at your associating of red necks with all people of European ancestry, nope you get your red neck tag based upon the way you behave and choose to express yourself, nothing to be proud of either. They are found pretty much all over the globe, unfortunately. Bogans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is another name for them, perhaps American red necks might prefer it, it definitely has a more descriptive ring to it.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by Panoptes · · Score: 2

      "he [a redneck] may be part American Indian"

      Can you give a citation, or is this just a pigment of your imagination?

    12. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Y'know... I'm partially black. I can't speak for everyone. I am mature enough to say this, there are certain times - like with references to the name itself, where saying "nigger" is okay. Well, at least I don't mind. I don't really mind any usage but typing "the N word" just seems a bit silly. I don't have a whole lot of black left in me (GNAA jokes notwithstanding) so maybe my opinion should only amount to that same amount. However, I thought I'd share.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You said "connotation" and I am offended!!! Donate to my Patreon (I think that's the name) at once or report to the reeducation camp posthaste.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    14. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by grcumb · · Score: 1

      Rule of thumb: If you don't self-identify as a redneck, and wouldn't use the "N" word, don't use the "R" word.

      'Self-important fuckwit' on the other hand, has no such restriction. :-)

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    15. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by yanyan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you were thinking of the word "redskin"?

    16. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      That seems unlikely considering that around the world the term is used by people of Dutch and German ancestry to refer to people of British ancestry and has been that way since the early colonial days.

      Here at the South End of Africa "rooineck" is still a common slang term for "Englishman".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Mind you, that is the more salubrious term, those who are still angry about the Anglo Boer War 102 years later... well their preferred term for an Englishman translates as "salty dick head".

      I wonder how they know that...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    18. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >the war on coal decimating employment

      Not to mention that, in fact, coal is a teeny-tiny employer in the American economy and always has been. There are already more green energy jobs in America than there were coal jobs even at it's height.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    19. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      - Times changed, back then guns were an effective way to keep the government in check or seek independence, now not so much.

      - The religious nuts back then were just as bad, it's simply that they had less power so were forced to agree to separation of church and state. More recently their power has grown and they are now acting against the common good and their former dedication to this separation, e.g. by introducing "under god" into the pledge that children are forced to recite at school.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by Grim+Beefer · · Score: 1

      Shut up.

      NOBODY that actually lives in the south thinks "redneck" is a racial slur. Nobody. Your college definition has little relevance to the real world. Being a redneck is about your attitude towards life and your actions, not your income or intelligence level. It's more akin to words like "gangster", "intellectual", "hippie", "tomboy" and so on, not words like "white", "black", or "asian". It's not a god damn racial slur, despite whatever eggheads think it's historical origins might be, for the same fucking reason that you can't be racist against hippies. Two brothers can come from the same family, and one of them can be a redneck and one of can not be. It just depends on how you turn out. I should know, I'm one of those brothers.

      I'm not saying that you can't use the term in a bigoted way to denigrate poor folks, just don't call it a damn racial slur. The south has enough problems with race relations without jackasses wanting to muddy the waters with this kind of horseshit. Calling someone a redneck in no way carries the gravity of calling a black person ANY racial slur. Just don't even compare the two.

    21. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by riondluz · · Score: 1

      my understanding is that the term redneck had
      its origins in the KY/WVA scots-irish who went
      on strike in the 19th century and tied red
      scarves around their necks to distinguish
      themselves from the 'company' men

      --
      resist propaganda
    22. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1
      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    23. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      I'm not advocating for racial slurs, I'm only questioning the assertions made by the person I responded to.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    24. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and in real life there will always be some nutcases. It's human nature and its unavoidable. Knowing this, how do you defend a society handing guns to these nutcases?

      Easy: with a history book. If you want to be safe, take the guns away from your police, government, and military first. Then take them away from the "nutcases."

    25. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Times changed, back then guns were an effective way to keep the government in check or seek independence, now not so much.

      Really? Somebody should've told the Viet Cong, the Afghan rebels, and ISIS.

    26. Re:"Redneck" is a racial slur. by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Also, "Redneck" is a label MANY people wear with pride.

      The entire post smacks of trolling/propaganda.

  37. Not sure if their data is any good by daninaustin · · Score: 1

    I looked through a sample and it seemed to be loaded with Russian email addresses. A quick check of a few phone numbers turned up a testing center, a credit agency and a loan processing company. These are the first numbers i checked so looks like it's 0 for 3 on the phone numbers.

  38. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by schneidafunk · · Score: 1
    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
  39. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The NAACP should be targeted next.

  40. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not compared to the NAACP and NOW.

  41. Re:Jew fraud kkk - by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

    May the schwartz be with you!

    Fight for your bitcoins!

  42. Re:Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by thaylin · · Score: 1

    Last I am not a politician who threw myself into the public sportlight

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  43. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You don't know anything about the Tea Party except what you've been told by CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, etc. If you knew anything about them, you'd probably agree with them. Don't let your ignorance blind you.

    They are not a "hate" group and have plenty of black members. They even have a lot of members who are Democrats!

  44. Free breakfast for children. by khasim · · Score: 1

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Breakfast_for_Children

    They had problems later. But in the beginning they were doing a lot to help minorities.

    1. Re:Free breakfast for children. by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      al copone also started the first soup kitchen. Gangsers of all sorts always give back to the community (well the smart ones do)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  45. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by thaylin · · Score: 1

    Thaylin's comment here being a perfect demonstration of such.

    Please clarify, are you saying my comment is an example of hate speech ? there was nothing in my statement that indicated hate. Politicians in a hate group should be outted. When someone places themselve, of their own free will into the public spotlight and says "hey look at me, I am virtuous" then they deserve to be looked at to determine if they are indeed virtuous.

    --
    When you cant win, ad hominem.
  46. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by Rakarra · · Score: 4, Informative

    The usefulness of your post notwithstanding, I heard in a news broadcast a few months ago (to my recollection) that the Klan's membership used to numbers in the millions at its peak and is now measured in tens of thousands. Happily, it's a club apparently on the decline.

    The clan has had many rises and falls throughout history -- it hasn't been one continuous organization. This is the third Ku Klux Klan active. The first arose (and fell) during Southern Reconstruction after the Civil War, the second Klan was active between WWI and WWII (and was more concerned about Catholics, Jews, and immigrants moreso than black people), and the third arose post-World War II. Who knows if a fourth will ever arise. At first, I thought it would be more difficult in today's world of hyper-connectedness, but one of the side-effects is that it's now far easier for geographically-distant radicals to band together and enjoy their echo chamber.

  47. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    The BNP *were* a party. I don't know if their dwindling away to nothing was entirely due to the membership leak, but presumably it had a big part to play. Hopefully the same will happen to the KKK.

    No sympathy. Racist thugs don't deserve it.

  48. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So are American's allowed to join ISIS and speak their mind about it?

    No.

    It seems only foreign terrorist organisations are banned. Domestic ones are allowed. And yes, the KKK is a terrorist group. How else can you describe their activities as "night riders". Lynching, burning and dragging black people.

  49. Re: The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Klan membership had always ebbed and flowed. According to HateWatch and the Southern Poverty Law Center, Klan membership is sadly on the rise again.

  50. Re:Questionable Accuracy: Include Gay, Latina Mayo by cdrudge · · Score: 1

    My city's mayor was also identified even though he's a democratic mayor with fairly liberal leanings. The supporting evidence isn't as strong with him as it is with the others that they are NOT members of the KKK, but it's pretty hard to believe.

  51. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    I had not heard of this, but if he did it he should be prosecuted for encouraging vigilantism. Zimmerman shot a kid in self defense, and when the courts ruled it as the truth, he should have been left alone.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  52. Re:Stop white genocide by behrooz0az · · Score: 1

    You really should have thought about that before You enslaved them; and that's not what KKK stands for. stop embarrassing yourself.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
  53. Re:Backwater racist rednecks by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    If you're talking history, yes. If you're talking the last 50 years, then no, they are almost all Republicans. Such was the turnaround in the positioning of the parties.

  54. Re: The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by kaatochacha · · Score: 2

    That's because they're so abysmally low, that two people joining today probably is a 10% bump.

    and, the Anonymous statement above "You seek to intimidate and/or eliminate those that are different from you and those that you dislike by any means possible" could equally be applied to Anonymous, just sayin....

  55. ... but still... not groking free speech by nsxdavid · · Score: 1

    It's still a bit stunning to me how few people understand the whole concept of "Freedom of Speech". Even this anon doesn't seem to understand what it is all about. There is nothing in the First Amendment about you or me impinging on anyone's freedom of speech, only on congress passing laws that would do so.

    So it would not matter what Anonymous did, unless Anonymous happened to be the law-making body of our government (i.e. congress) that would apply. So the whole free speech part of the press release speaks really poorly of their (or that person's) understanding of this particular issue. There was no need to defend themselves from the imputed accusation that they were impinging on someone's freedom of speech, since they are perfectly free to do so if they wanted too.

    --
    David Whatley
    1. Re:... but still... not groking free speech by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      I challenge your understanding of the whole concept. The idea of "freedom of speech" transcends The First Amendment. Yes, The Constitution is specific in that it denies government the power to pass laws infringing upon free speech, but it doesn't end there. It may be "legal" for private organizations and individuals to suppress speech that they don't like, but those efforts ARE infringing on "freedom of speech". You admit in your last sentence that this is exactly what's happening here. When you have to live in fear of repercussions, violent or otherwise, for expressing your opinions, you don't have "freedom of speech". It doesn't matter if the repercussions are a result of government policy or the efforts of private parties. The accusation is entirely appropriate. Our society is f***ed up for allowing the persecution of people who say unpopular things. It's also incredibly hypocritical because so many people (particularly academics) claim to support freedom of expression in principle, but do everything possible to stifle ideas that they don't like.

    2. Re:... but still... not groking free speech by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Our society is f***ed up for allowing the persecution of people who say unpopular things.

      And those PERsecuted individuals can PROsecute the slanderers.

      That's how our government handles the enforcement of Freedom of Speech.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  56. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    The usefulness of your post notwithstanding, I heard in a news broadcast a few months ago (to my recollection) that the Klan's membership used to numbers in the millions at its peak and is now measured in tens of thousands.

    I doubt they even have that many members, my unsubstantiated guess would be well under 10,000, maybe half that many.

    But I agree, it's good to see them in decline. In the next 20 years (after all the old geezer members die off) I suspect they'll be down to a couple of thousand, if that. They'll be vastly outnumbered by furries and people that enjoy My Little Pony porn, lol.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  57. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Here, I'll answer both ways:

    "Why yes, I'm an extreme liberal. I'd prefer not to make the same dumb mistakes that the faux-news crowd routinely does."

    Alternatively...

    "I'm a Republican and I know that's not even remotely true. I hope you lot do start spewing that garbage so it'll ruin your credibility."

    Pick whichever one you like.

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  58. This sort of activity gets dangerous by kuzb · · Score: 1

    All they have to do is publish someone's name and whether or not there's evidence to support the claim that person will be smeared. The problem with Anonymous groups doxing is that you can't be sure what their motives are, or if they're telling the truth. They also have zero accountability.

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
  59. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

    So wanting constitutionally limited government now equals being racist KKK terrorists?

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  60. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

    Not only that but Black, Hispanic and South Asian Tea Party activists have been elected to congress (and the Senate).

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  61. Re:Stop white genocide by Garfong · · Score: 1

    I hope you will shortly be returning to Europe, and leave the Americas to their indigenous peoples. The only reason white people are here is because they couldn't make their own shitty countries work.

    If you are in Europe, I hope you're not an Irish protestant, English, Normand, Breton, or from the south of Spain, or many other places in Europe, I have bad news for you too.

  62. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    However the racists moved out of the KKK and into other groups that didn't act like clowns.

  63. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Is the KKK currently involved in terrorist activities? They used to be, but I don't know that they still do.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  64. Re:Stop white genocide by meglon · · Score: 1

    Europe went through that whole thing in the 30's and 40's dealing with asshats like that racial purist AC; they really don't want any of them coming back.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  65. Re:Questionable Accuracy: Include Gay, Latina Mayo by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I was on a neo-Nazi mailing list for quite a few years. I don't know how I got on it, but it was mildly amusing every so often.

    This should not be taken to mean that I have any warm feelings for neo-Nazis, or the old National Socialists.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  66. Someone PLEASE tell me by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    that Clayton Bigsby is on that list.

    http://www.cc.com/video-clips/...

    --
    -Styopa
  67. Taking cues from Fallout 3? by Chalnoth · · Score: 1

    Fallout 3 was released in late 2008, and includes the People's Republic of America Radio. Presumably they thought it was a good idea?

  68. Basic knowledge of history sadly lacking by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1
  69. Read the official opKKK twitter account by zedaroca · · Score: 1
    https://twitter.com/Operation_KKK

    They state that the release will happen on the 5th of November (of course).
    They also warn about the pastebin with fake names.

    The twitter account that released the pastebin with the government officials that are clearly not KKK is https://twitter.com/sgtbilko42...

    (...)

    For any information about #OpKKK we will refer to the official .@Operation_KKK twitter account

  70. Re: The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

    the Anonymous statement above "You seek to intimidate and/or eliminate those that are different from you and those that you dislike by any means possible" could equally be applied to Anonymous

    It could be applied to SJWs in general. Let there be a pox on all their houses.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  71. This is relevant how? by cbhacking · · Score: 1

    That has what all to do with the comment you're replying to? The topic isn't racism in general, it's the KKK in particular and vigilante action / doxxing in general. Yes, the KKK are bad because they're racist, but this disclosure (even if 100% accurate and not leading to any false positives, which is respectively unlikely and laughably absurd) doesn't actually do anything about racism as a problem or viewpoint of the people in question.

    In fact, it makes anti-racists look like hypocrites who don't care about collateral damage, which is... not the best way to go about convincing people of the righteousness of your cause.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  72. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    Black I can understand, but Green Tea Party activists too? Sounds like progress to me!

  73. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by Holi · · Score: 1

    Hard to dox a public official, there residences are usually public record.

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
  74. I wonder if they will do the same by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    To the islam-o-nazi types that have come here to destroy the USA? Oh, I forgot, "that's racist".

  75. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  76. Re: The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Do they wear sheets so that black ppl can join-in without being discriminated against?

  77. Re:Questionable Accuracy: Include Gay, Latina Mayo by will_die · · Score: 1

    Have you read the words of Cesar Chavez? According to current people he is a grade A racist.
    What is so bad is you now have people going around and changing this words and actions so he true beliefs are not shown.

  78. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by Barsteward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    their loudest voice is Sarah Palin, what more do you need to know?

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  79. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    UKIP has moved in to take its place with legally smarter rhetoric

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  80. 200 years? by sgunhouse · · Score: 1

    Wasn't the Klan formed after the Civil War? That would make it 150 years.

  81. Only 1,000? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    That's it? Honestly, that's pretty pitiful. Yet once this data is combed over by some more militant BLM people, I fully expect to hear about some targeted LEO assassinations. Once a person, especially one who has already been believed to be harassing minorities for awhile, is found to also be on this "list"...they will be a target. I also suspect several people in a specific area of Arizona to be outed on this list too. But really, only 1,000? Just cracking some place like Stormfront should get far more results than that.

  82. My Mayor is on the list. by alfredo · · Score: 1

    He is openly gay, has close ties to immigrant, low income, and African American communities. He's a Liberal. I think they screwed up this one entry. His dad shares the same name, so it could be his father. He has forcefully denied the charges.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  83. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    And it in it's turn is dwindling away to nothing. The leader resigned after the poor election results, but was brought back because they have no one to replace him.

  84. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    Is there a statute of limitations on terrorism?

  85. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    The KKK is not a political party - if they were, that would be a different matter.

    Indeed it would be better. Rightwing crazies in small parties may be annoying, but they are also relatively harmless... at least, unless everything else go horribly wrong and they win a number of parliamentary seats, form a coalition with the mainstream conservatives which sees their leader made president in an effort to absorb them into the mainstream and defuse the situation, then the chancelor dies and the newly appointed president appoints himself to that office as well effectively removing all checks and balances and becoming the absolute ruler and then they haul off every liberal and socialist in government one night and shoot them in the head... but in fairness that's only happened once.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  86. Solution??? by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    I say just put all the KKK members and all the Black Panther members in the same place, say the Antarctic Tundra, and let them sort out their issues.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
  87. Re:It's always against right wing groups. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    You must have missed when anonymous went after (and released the details of a large number of) ISIS members.

    As for going against rightwing organisations, if your goal is to attack evil, that's a pretty good way to recognize it.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  88. Re:Hope The Nerds Hid Well by moeinvt · · Score: 1

    "they have a reputation for perpetuating gratuitous physical violence"

    Yeah, 50 years ago. Nowadays they are a pathetic joke. Anonymous stays anonymous because they don't want to admit to stealing the data, not because they're afraid of the KKK.
    Also, the prison gang you're talking about is "The Aryan Brotherhood" and it's like any other criminal gang. They don't give two shits about your political opinions. It was formed purely as a survival mechanism for white guys in prison. You don't want to be a lone white dude in a prison full of Bloods, Crips, Mexican Mafiosos, MS-13ers or whatever.

  89. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by twistedcubic · · Score: 1


    the second Klan was active between WWI and WWII (and was more concerned about Catholics, Jews, and immigrants moreso than black people)

    Citation? HIstory suggests the opposite for this time period.

  90. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by Cederic · · Score: 1

    The leader resigned after the poor election results

    Yeah, getting over twice as many votes as a party that won 56 seats in parliament is a fucking disaster.

    The irony is that UKIP appear to be less racist too.

    Meanwhile BNP membership is discriminated against by the police service, which will almost certainly have greatly reduced the number of people signing up. If the police banned membership of Labour, Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives, the Lib Dems, the SNP and UKIP too then you'd see membership for those drop as well.

  91. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I don't know about individuals, but if nobody in the KKK is a terrorist now I don't think it should be thought of as a terrorist organization. Assholes have rights in this country, and if they want to organize to talk about a stupid ideology they can.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  92. What? No black panther members hack? by brainchill · · Score: 1

    I am noticing a rather pervasive double standard here ..... Racism is racism and any group that would put itself above all others is the same so far as I'm concerned.

  93. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    the second Klan was active between WWI and WWII (and was more concerned about Catholics, Jews, and immigrants moreso than black people)

    Citation? HIstory suggests the opposite for this time period.

    The second Klan, unlike the first and third, was a more urban movement with a centralized leadership structure, and were based in the West and Midwest with a smaller base in the South (specifically Alabama). While it's true that Birth of a Nation helped galvanize the second Klan in the South and gave us much of the visual imagery that we associate today with the Klan, the organization was riding the wave of anti-immigrant sentiment at the time. Don't get me wrong, they were still a completely racist and anti-black organization, but that wasn't their core focus at the time; black people were kept "in their place" in the South, and the second Klan was more concerned with external threats. Mostly Protestants, they have great distrust towards the Catholic Church and the American Jew (the Anti-Defamation League was formed as a response to the second Klan's anti-Jewish activities). They also strongly endorsed, and this was one of their greatest popular selling points, Prohibition. They burned saloons in the South and attacked bootleggers. They didn't get much foothold in the northeast due to the stronger Catholic influence there.

    They were (late in the organization) strongly anti-Communist, but I'm guessing that the stated goals of the second Klan being so close to the stated goals of the Nazi Party helped kill off the second clan. Being a group that thrived on social tension, the Great Depression and World War II killed off that organization for good. They had more of a centralized organization, but they were also very secretive, so when membership lists were leaked and published, people left the Klan in droves. The Klan was already in great decline by the 1930s after some of the leaders were convicted for murder

    The third Klan arose in the late 40s and 1950s as a response to the Civil Rights Movement and upward mobility in Black Americans, and as such was far more concerned with the rights (or lack thereof) of black folks. That's the group we think of as the Klan today.

    Interesting reads include Kelly Baker's Gospel According to the Klan and while Wikipedia may be iffy at times, it's worthwhile to follow the references it cites.

  94. Re: The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by hachigatsu62 · · Score: 1

    LOL! Sarah Palin. Isn't that the lady who can see Russia from her house? She should move there and take the clan with her. Regardless of the fact the 2 aren't connected. Just waste of skin.

  95. Re: The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by hachigatsu62 · · Score: 1

    That's a good question. I mean as a "nigger" I could join without the help of affirmative action. Not that it matters, but I'm Jamaican. Just saying. 2 weeks ago a category 5 Hurricane Patricia which was the 3rd largest in history to touch land blew right over Mexico. Predictions were scary. Results, no loss of life and minimal damage. Who saw that as a miracle? Probably no one. Patricia now less than a tropical depression touched US soil taking 1 life and causing significant damage. High School kids either committing suicide because their peers are mean hateful ignorant little pricks. Or they take out their frustration by shooting up the schools. Cops murdering people, not just black people. Cyber Warfare, sex slavery, children being traded as sex slaves... Children people and all the other nonsense that's happening in the world and instead of combining resources and knowledge and working together to solve problems, we still tear each other down. Nigger this, nigger that. Cracker this cracker that. Ignorant, Destructive, hateful and just flat out selfish. Awwww... Welcome to the greatest country in the world. USA. However it's still better here for us "niggers" than over in Europe where in some countries actually put up billboards saying go home monkeys, you are not wanted here. Classic! I honestly wish the world would end Today!

  96. Freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences by rhyous · · Score: 1

    In the United States of America, we have the freedom of speech, yes. But nowhere are we guaranteed freedom from the consequences of speech. There may not be government-imposed consequences, but there are social, political, news/media, and/or market consequences.

    If you are a business owner and you make a statement that offends the public, your business might take a hit. The constitution isn't going to force anyone to shop at your store. The constitution guarantees you the right to make the statement without government-imposed consequences.

    Also, privacy is not a constitutional right. I am still having an internal debate on whether it should be. But even if privacy were a constitutional right, a person would lose such a right if they shared their opinion publicly on Social media. That opinion is now public and no longer private by the person's own choice. If that person tries to get around this by using an alias account, well, there is no guarantee that the alias will really hide who that person is.

  97. I do so love irony... by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    "You are more than a hate group. You operate much more like terrorists and you should be recognized as such. You are terrorists that hide your identities beneath sheets and infiltrate society on every level."

    Golly, I thought for a moment they were talking about themselves...

  98. Re:The Klan Is Always Getting Bigger by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    The same description describes the Palestinian youth who, for the past 50 years have been subjected to hatred propaganda in their schools, mosques, Radio and TV.
    Imagine for Palestinians whose rulers wasted money on tunnels, while the Israelis developed Nuclear reactors, desalination plants, and provides their enemies with both electricity and water, and money.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  99. Indian immigrants by NewYork · · Score: 1

    You should be aware of creeping Caste system (a type of Pyramid scheme) due to Indian migrants;

    If you meet anybody from India, ask him "What is your caste".
    If he says Brahmin, SACK him, before he injects the Pyramid scheme in your society;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

  100. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    Yeah, getting over twice as many votes as a party that won 56 seats in parliament is a fucking disaster.

    The clue is in the party names. The SNP only stood in Scotland, and they won virtually every steat they contested. UKIP stood throughout the UK. There is no sense in which UKIP did better than the SNP. Not MPs and not votes.

    The irony is that UKIP appear to be less racist too.

    They try harder to hide it. But rarely a week went by during the election when one candidate or another wasn't outed for racism.

    Meanwhile BNP membership is discriminated against by the police service

    Good. And the adoption service too. You can't condone having racists as policemen, or racists adopting children.

  101. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Good. And the adoption service too. You can't condone having racists as policemen, or racists adopting children.

    I can't condone having sexists in those roles either but feminists aren't banned.
    I can't condone having fuckwits that want to overthrow the government in those roles but communists aren't banned.
    I can't condone having people that reject the law of the land in favour of their fictional book of lies but muslims aren't banned.

    How about banning people based on their behaviour, not on the political party they support? Someone in the police commits racist acts, prosecute them, sack them. That's not so hard.

    It is possible to be a member of the BNP and not be a racist. Just as it's possible to be a member of the SNP and not be a racist. Equally unlikely but one of those is banned from the police service and not the other.

  102. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

    Your clear sympathy for the BNP is noted.

  103. Re: Publishing? You mean DOXXING right? by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Your clear inability to identify objective observation and content agnostic defence of basic rights has been rather more accurately noted.