Slashdot Mirror
A Reporter Built a Bot To Find Nazi Sock Puppet Accounts. Twitter Banned the Bot and Kept the Nazis (nytimes.com)
Yair Rosenberg, writing for the New York Times: I asked my own Twitter followers whether it might be possible to create a bot that would reply to these impostors and expose their true nature to any users they tried to fool. Neal Chandra, a talented developer in San Francisco whom I've never met, replied, "I can try to throw something together this evening." And so, after a week of testing, Impostor Buster was born. Using a crowdsourced database of impersonator accounts, carefully curated by us to avoid any false positives, the bot patrolled Twitter and interjected whenever impostors tried to insinuate themselves into a discussion (Editor's note: the link may be paywalled). Within days, our golem for the digital age had become a runaway success, garnering thousands of followers and numerous press write-ups. Most important, we received countless thank-yous from alerted would-be victims. The impersonator trolls seethed. Some tried changing their user names to evade the bot (it didn't work). Others simply reverted to their openly neo-Nazi personas. A few even tried to impersonate the bot, which was vastly preferable from our perspective and rather amusing. Twitter sided with the Nazis. In April, the service suspended Impostor Buster without explanation and reinstated it only after being contacted by the ADL's cyber-hate team. Over the next few months, we fine-tuned the bot to reduce its tweets and avoid tripping any of Twitter's alarms. As the trolls continued to report the bot to no avail, we thought the problem was resolved. But we were wrong. This month, Twitter suspended the bot again, and this time refused to revive it.
Yeah, Twitter has a bot policy.
https://help.twitter.com/en/ru...
Zoid.com
Look, I'm on board with a good nazi bash just like everyone else...but...
This smells fishy. They openly admit they spammed people, and they don't provide context to the discussion. Twitter is known for having a somewhat left-bias, so if these folks were identified and banned, twice, I'm already suspicious.
The linked article stinks of sensationalism, and that's what tripped my bullshit sensors from the start.
These assholes may be telling the truth, and they may be entirely justified in their outrage, but the article and the style in which it was written makes me highly suspicious.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
If you eliminate the troll accounts, you would find twitter is not experiencing the growth it claims.
It sounds a lot like they took a self-selected list of target accounts that they selected (or. People they personally chose to try and censor) and had a bot continuously spam any place those people tried to speak.
Perhaps it is just me, but doing that seems pretty damn 'nazi' (to use the modern interpretation of the word) and deserves a ban hammer at the least.
What they have done is basically told the world 'or opinion is RIGHT, and we will shout down any other opinions, because only our opinion is allowed to be heard, agree with us or pay the price'
In other words they are closed minded self riteous morons who want the world to be their own personal echo chamber.
It seems however the right thing was, almost surprisingly, done.
Nope. 1st amend. applies to govt only.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
We need to brutally murder these nazi cowards so they understand what the fuck their ideology means to honest, hard working citizens of America. Kill em all.
But commie shits are perfectly ok with you, right?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Did you also report that old commie stooge @BernieSanders?
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Not to mention that the title is pretty much a lie.
This 'reporter' selected a bunch of target accounts that they wanted to target, and pointed a bot at them than just spam-replied to attack those accounts.
The bot was doing no finding, no uncovering, nothing smart, it was just attempting to censor through spam.
The guy got exactly what he deserved - in fact was treated better than he should be, because their first time around he actually did manage to get his spam-bot reinstated - it was only the second time that it was correctly taken down for good.
He will try and spin victim-politics here, but the fact is that he feels the right to be the sole determiner of who should be removed from a platform he has nothing to do with. It doesnt reall ymatter if his targets are good, bad, or indifferent - he simply does not have that right.
But the Annoying Orange is funny!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"You looked at me in a way that I didn't like - you're a nazi fascist sexist misogynist and you need to die."
Any and all reasons for calling someone a "nazi" are fair game. So much so that the word has now lost almost all meaning.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Nie wolno, APK.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Congratulations on uncovering that subtly hidden fact. It's not as if the journalist opened the story by discussing how he received lots of antisemitic abuse on Twitter and that was his motivation, is it? We have your amazing detective work to thank for bringing this to our attention.
I honestly don't see anyone talking about gassing Jewish people?
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
People really seem to struggle with this as a distinction, don't they. (Also the distinction between communist, socialist, left-of-centre, and liberal)
I read the story hoping to learn more but I'm mildly suspicious because there is nothing to support what might well be true but could also be entirely fictitious
I don't know twitter's policies against nazis per se.
I'm fairly sure however that twitter does not condone hate speech itself, even if they allow nazis themselves. My guess is that people are prima facie welcome until they violate twitter's rules, then they get banned just like anyone else.
What twitter does NOT allow however, most likely, is a non-human bot using an account. Were the intentions of the bot (or rather, its programmer) less benign it would be nothing more than a spambot.
You know what there definitely is such a thing as these days? Stupid people saying stupid shit that they think is really clever. And you, AC, have just provided an excellent example of exactly this.
Too bad "nazi" now means anyone who is not a leftist.
In this context, "nazi" means white nationalists, white supremacists... basically anyone at the "unite the right" rally who chanted nazi slogans. You know, nazis.
Not conservatives. Not libertarians. Just nazis.
Enjoy your civil war.
Racists caused the last one and racists, presumably because most of them don't actually know what a civil war actually is, seem to want one now. I don't know what a "race war" is, but I would prefer not to share a country with people who need one just so they can be proven right.
So if we can just peacefully persuade the racists to shut the fuck up (or if they are serious about white nationalism, fuck off back to Europe) it won't happen.
These impersonators are simply creating a Twitter account with appealing pictures/simplistic bios and people care about whatever they say?! If that bot was doing something useful, I guess that it should continue doing so (BTW, is it so difficult for the bot creators to just open another Twitter account and simply perform the corresponding updates, probably just modifying the API connection info?). On the other hand, people who can be tricked so easily are very likely to be tricked anyway: there is no easy fix for so much gullibility.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
This is Slashdot, use the correct terminology or you will be called out for it, little furry.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
The party was dismantled generations ago, there are no more Nazis.
So those chaps making Nazi saultes, chanting "blood and soil", wearing swastikas and so on---what would you call them exactly?
If you want a good argument about it, I suggest you try arguing with this chap:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Har...
His take on it:
I guess I got confused when they gave the #Hitler salute and chanted "blood and soil" b/c it reminded me of who I fought in my youth.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There's no need to sockpuppet, there's next to no brigading here ... except for the occasional random loon.
It's a fairly good shorthand though.
Sure, why not? Redefining words is all the rage these days.
Fuck the longstanding, established definitions; if I need a new and innovative way to call my political opponent a Bad Person, who's Merriam-Webster to tell me what pejoratives I can fling at him? If "Trump is a literal nazi" didn't work in 2016, then maybe "Trump is literal Satan" will work in 2020.
Homophobia and death threats. What makes you any better than them?
You mean we do not need to clearly determine who is what and just act on a group in a group punishments sort of way? Wait have we not had that before?
Ah, yes. Petty vengeance is always a good motivator for most people, true.
"I got abused so I will abuse myself." Great way to go.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
What applies to the governments, applies to its citizens. Even if companies can not be hold to it, as a citizen, in principle, you have the right to free speech. Companies can give sanctions or have other policies, but they can't really *prohibit* free speech, as such, of anyone.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
You know what else applies to "govt"?
Obligation to protect the citizens from persecution by third parties.
Laminate tha, dipwit.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
No hear me out, it's not so ridiculous... maybe Twitter was originally invented to keep trolls/Nazis away from other social media? Like a giant flytrap?
Are you talking about absolute idiots or reasonable people? The former says crazy shit all the time no matter which political/religious/shoe size they have and can be ignored.
Reasonable people use nazi as a generic insult too but not for "anyone who is not a leftist", if they do that they are in the absolute idiot category. Strongly authoritarian right have common traits with national socialism but so have leftist authoritarians. That doesn't mean they _are_ national socialists of course.
But now we should study what _you_ wrote: you imply only "leftist" people use the nazi insult. Ludicrous! Either your world-view is skewed so extremely that everyone using the word nazi is per definition leftist (which indicates that you are a right-wing extremist) or that you are an absolute idiot and should be ignored.
So what is it?
--
People not realizing there are many more axes in politics than the simple "left"-"right" one scares me. Democracy requires thinking people understanding politics in order to function properly.
There are liberal left and there are liberal right, there are authoritarian left just as there are authoritarian right, there are religious leftism just as there are religious rightism.
By doing that, you are hollowing out the term Nazi. In your vision, it just means 'racist'. It doesn't.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
"So those chaps making Nazi saultes, chanting "blood and soil", wearing swastikas and so on---what would you call them exactly?"
They're called Neo-nazi's.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Bullshit. The NSDAP doesn't exist anymore, so what? Do you define national socialist as being only the members of the NSDAP?
That's not the definition the Deutsches Reich used, it was not the definition countries external to the 3rd reich used.
I'm not taking a side, but just pointing out. According to Merriam-Webster... nazi would be a valid term to use in these cases. You picked a poor example.
I wouldn't call them Nazis because they aren't a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
So your argument is Since the persons are not formally members of the nazi party, they are not nazis. That is as ridiculous as claiming Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Nazi
2 b : one who is likened to a German Nazi :
So calling someone a nazi by definition makes them a nazi.
Nice.
Given your replies from another sub-thread I wonder how this is relevant? You haven't proven that the actions are abusing the other users, you haven't proven the intent was to abuse other people and you haven't proven vengeance was the motivation.
So are you a hypocrite? Or perhaps things aren't so black and white after all?
No, I do not. But, I'm not interested in leading this into argumentum ad nauseam over outliers.
Regardless, it would be disingenuous to claim there aren't more accurate, more up to date and better terminology there to describe these people.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
I wouldn't call them Nazis because they aren't a member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
If they look like a Nazi, quack like a Nazi, make heavy use of Nazy symbology and espouse the same values, it's reasonablt to call them Nazis.
If you want to engage in a game of mindless semantics where only you control the definitions, feel free, but don't expect anyone else to think you're being sensible.
you seem to think being called out for bad grammar, bad terminology etc. is some how unacceptable
Ah, I see you've entered the "just make shit up" part of the debate. That didn't take you very long I must say.
Where do you think you are? This isn't Twitter
On Twitter, you might have a chance of trying your arguments out with someone who has more than an armchair perspective, you know, someone who actually fought the Nazis.
I see you simply ignored that.
By the way, quoting the names of inapplicable logical fallacies, especially those you don't understand does not make an argument, and it does not make you sound clever.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The only other comment I could find with the word 'gas' outside of ours was:
https://tech.slashdot.org/comm...
Doesn't really fit the criteria. Could you link all the comments made on this Slashdot article fitting your specific criteria please?
Oh no, I stole my own identity and now I am a "neo-nazi puppet scum" because I object to the stupid abuse of language and end it with a self-deprecating tongue in cheek of my own. I'm sorry you lack humour.
On Slashdot too, where you'll get told off for run-on sentences, not making paragraphs. Your paranoia is ridiculous, but at least you're trying to use proper terminology now.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
We should all follow the god of Islam and start covering our women and throwing gays from building then right?
So Progressive!
So, just like the far right Christians? Different identities, same attitudes.
BTW moderates of any creed tend to be okay, but not universally so
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If you want to engage in a game of mindless semantics where only you control the definitions, feel free, but don't expect anyone else to think you're being sensible.
That sounds awfully anti-semantic to me!
So in effect, anyone you brutally murder was a nazi coward. That's certainly an appealing model for society isn't it.
Maybe Twitter should learn from Slashdot's 20 years of experience with trolls and moderation.
There are still racist trolls posting on every article, but we don't have to see them at all thanks to the system.
If it looks like a Nazi, Smells like a Nazi, holds the same views as a Nazi, and salutes like a Nazi, it is acceptable to call it a Nazi, and then punch it in it's stupid, ignorant, bigoted, Nazi, face.
False equivalence.
This is not an argument. This is your opinion presented as if it were a fact. You are by all means entitled to have your opinions, but please do not try to present them as facts. It comes across to me as a disguised attempt to appal to authority, with you being the authority.
This is Slashdot, not Twitter.
You have posted this or similar to several of your posts, and it comes across as an attempt to silence the other person and to try to be an authority ("such and such are the rules"). If you want to influence people, telling them to shut up or otherwise address them in a derogatory way is usually never a good idea.
But, to address the very quote (which I interpret to mean "While on twitter you might get away by saying whatever rambling comes out of your head, here on slashdot you have to provide valid arguments for what you write").
You have claimed that the arguments are not equivalent without backing that up with any arguments. So in a eat your own dog food opportunity, please explain exactly what you think the difference(s) between claiming Since the persons are not formally members of the nazi party, they are not nazis and Since World War II was the last formally declared war, there have been no wars since then is (are).
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
The Nazis were left wing as well.
No, they weren't. They defined themselves as a "third position" distinct from both right and left, adopting a few elements from one side, a few from the other, and adding stuff of their own to the mix. This is why the right calls them left, the left calls them right, the center considers them extremists in one direction or the other, and also why all three are wrong. The center is correct only insofar as nazis are extremists, but they're extremists in a direction that doesn't fit within the left-right spectrum.
Also, internally the Nazi Party had several subgroups, including a left wing, a right wing, a monarchist wing etc. At some point the right wing of the party decided the left wing was being too troublesome and killed them all. Afterwards the economic policies of the party, that were somewhat "balanced" from the perspective of the left-right axis of the time, turned markedly to the right. But contrary to what the current left wants to believe on the matter, that still didn't turn Nazism itself into a right wing movement.
Nazism was and remained first and foremost nazi-wing. Any attempt at reducing that wing so as to fit the left-right spectrum, be it into the left side of the spectrum, as conservatives and libertarians want to do, be it into the right side of the spectrum, as liberals and socialists want to do, is and will continue being incorrect and doomed to failure.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Well, I'd suggest not believing in any magic pixies in the sky at all as a more viable alternative.
America prides itself on being the great melting pot but 40 years of multi-culturalism has revealed that large ethnic immigration, like Europe is experiencing now, harms society.
I've seen studies showing that multiculturalism is indeed the problem, but with a caveat: "multiculturalism" understood as the specific policy the left began defending since a few decades of preserving cultures as they are by creating almost absolute barriers for meaningful cultural exchange, whose most recent example is the whole nonsense about "cultural appropriation". What this multiculturalism does is to create ghettos with invisible walls, and that in turn results in a permanente divide that only grow resentment and tribal identities.
Before those policies were enacted, the US and other countries did pretty well with immigration. Immigrants understood they were moving into another culture that expected them to fit, and tried their best to fit while preserving distinctive elements of their origin cultures, not the whole package. These elements in turn spread a little into the culture they moved in, resulting in a blend that for all practical purposes worked pretty well. It was a conservative mode of thinking that worked, and worked well.
The current model is the opposite of that, and its failures are showing more and more, and in even more dramatic ways.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Merriam-Webster can suck it. Oxford gets it better.
Nazi
NOUN plural nazis
1) historical A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.
1.1) derogatory A person with extreme racist or authoritarian views.
1.2) A person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Different standards can be, and are, applied to governments that to the citizens. Especially in the US where the constitution was written by rebels who very specifically wanted to impose greater restriction on the government, while still allowing it to function as a government.
Correct. All racists are not Nazis, but damn near all Nazis are racists.
It's possible to be a racist and not believe in nationalism and autocratic rule.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
This is Slashdot, use the correct terminology or you will be called out for it
Trying to come up with an exact meaning of a political movement and have everybody agreeing on that is a meaningless exercise.
And your tone of voice again comes across as attempt to establish yourself as an authority establishing the rules, and trying to silence opponents.
little furry.
What purpose does calling someone little furry have other than being a form of ad hominem?
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
I asked you specifically and politely without aggression:
Doesn't really fit the criteria. Could you link all the comments made on this Slashdot article fitting your specific criteria please?
While I didn't really care, once you brought up that narrative, seeing "Neo-Nazis" everywhere who are talking about "gassing everyone", I started to wonder exactly if you're more of the same intellectually dishonest people out there.
Answer the question, please. This is vital information for determining the legitimacy of your anonymous comments since we don't have any posting history to go off and I cannot reproduce the claim you have made.
I can't believe I have to word this carefully because people keep labelling everyone with these words.
The supposed Neo-Nazi beliefs are pretty disgusting and I would not want to associate with them. People who fit the description, yes, they are scum.
However, I've seen people accused of being "Neo-Nazis" because they had the audacity to have a discussion about implementing an immigration system (in this case, an Australian style point system, equal opportunities for everyone) or talking about how tech workers coming out of universities don't actually meet the requirements to get into the workplace (literally, technology degree doesn't give you knowledge of a CCNA, MCSA, developer certs - so, discussing implementing these with no no free pass/average adjustments etc). They're not Neo-Nazis or scum in my eyes.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
>So those chaps making Nazi saultes, chanting "blood and soil", wearing swastikas and so on---what would you call them exactly?
That would be neo-nazism, which is very distinct in nearly all its aspects from the nazism of Hitler's Germany. For example, no nazi had a tribal uniform consisting of a shaven head, a pilot jacket, jackboots, and camo pants. None of them chanted "blood and soil". None of them wore swastikas -- that's a reference to Hitler's Germany, a sad romanticization of Hitler who (as we all know) lost the war and committed suicide.
Each of its aspects (white supremacy, racism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, violence for violence's sake, dismantling of the separation of powers, opposition to liberal democracy -- I could go on for quite a while longer!) is subject to scathing critique, which people such as yourself will fastidiously disregard because it applies to you in all but symbology. Worse, your obsessive focus on neo-nazi symbols conceals fascism as it appears in e.g. various nations' secret police, private security companies, and the internal security departments of any corporation large enough to have one. One would be readily excused for alleging that you're doing the fascists' work, distracting the rest of us from undermining the fascist strongholds.
Opposition to fascism means opposition to "those chaps", and also to you. Because you, in a nutshell, suck.
Many of the "white nationalists" who marched in Charlotte were wearing swastikas, carrying Nazi flags, and shouting anti-Jewish sayings. The other white nationalists there didn't seem to mind the presence of these folks. As a friendly tip: If you are waving a Nazi flag and shouting anti-Jewish sayings while protesting, chances are you're a Nazi. If the people you're protesting with are carrying a Nazi flag and you don't see anything wrong with that, chances are you're a Nazi.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Gee, I don't know Mr. Nazi.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
So all of a sudden it's "acceptable" to be violent towards someone because they have different views than you, but only if it's a certain subset of different views.
Yes, autocratic white supremecists are bad. No, that is not a free pass for committing assault. Grow up.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Can we get /. to put alexgieg's comment as a sticky note on every political topic from here on out?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Homophobia and death threats. What makes you any better than them?
I agree and disassociate from the author of the title, despite being on the left myself. As alluded on the good article linked, I suspect the author philosophically sits either on the right, or in the realm of anarchist.
Semantics wouldn't save me or my family if these people got into power and rounded us up because we're Jewish*. It wouldn't be any comfort to me to say "Sure these people stand for everything the Nazis stood for but since they haven't joined any 'National Socialist German Workers' Party' they aren't technically Nazis." These groups worship Nazis and want to pick up where Hitler left off. I've met one in person and he told me, to my face knowing that I was Jewish, that the only thing Hitler did wrong was not finishing the Jewish people off. These people are Nazis.
* And don't say they wouldn't do that. It might not happen right away, but these people would love to do this if they got enough political power. As for the "it wouldn't happen in America" argument that some trot out, I'd respond with exhibit A: The Japanese Internment Camps during WW2.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
No, it's called being equally sarcastic as the parent poster. I thought I was being obvious, but apparently not obvious enough.
If the other poster 'from the other sub-thread' wants to claim he was only being ironic, and his argument was not an argument at all, he should feel free to do so.
Thus, if you still would doubt: yes, things are white and black, as far as being a hypocrite or not goes. My post here was not relevant on purpose, to indicate and be equal to the non-relevance of the post I responded to, and I definitely didn't provide an valid argument.
So we're both in agreement. The only thing you missed is that I was being ironic in doing so, and it was not MEANT as a valid argument.
I'm still waiting on the poster of the 'other subthread' to acknowledge the same. But as long as he doesn't, his question was quite hypocritical indeed.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Thank you for this post, it is by far the best you have written in this thread. A tactful tone, your opinions presented as plain opinions, a genuine investigatory attempt to understand the other person. Bravo. Excellent. You have gained several points of respect from me. Thank you.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
Yes, Stalin and Mao strongly agree with your sentiment.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
To be fair, they are both "the problem."
Intolerance of race / sex / nationality / religion / etc, is a problem.
Intolerance of different thought and freedom of expression is also a problem, albeit a different problem.
I could do without either, but I don't espouse violence as being an answer.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Look it up yourself.
So all of a sudden it's "acceptable" to be violent towards someone because they have different views than you, but only if it's a certain subset of different views.
Views have nothing to do with it. What legitimizes violence against then is their continued active attempts to kill and/or subjugate everyone who isn't like them, starting with those who don't fit their list of approved ethnicities and religions, but quickly branching out into others. They have had decades to prove that they will do this at every opportunity, so every attempt by them to gain power should be taken as an active and deliberate attempt to commit the violence they espouse.
Yes, autocratic white supremecists are bad. No, that is not a free pass for committing assault. Grow up.
Nazi-punching is legitimate self-defense.
1.2) A person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way.
Interesting, seems like everyone is a Nazi then.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
So, I'm strongly against killing people who aren't an active threat, and I find the AC's use of anti-gay slurs offensive and unacceptable, but I'm still willing to say that the AC is probably a lot better than Nazis. If group A is advocating killing groups B,C,D,E,F,G, and H, and group A is to a large extent defined by that desire (whether or not they are actively engaged in it), then someone who wants to preemptively kill group A is probably wrong if group A isn't anywhere near its goals, but the person who wants to kill those in group A is not nearly as bad a person and has a pretty reasonable motivation.
To extend this just slightly, the primary problems with groups like Antifa is a) they go after people who are not active threats and b) that they have what amounts to very overactive Nazi detection. But that doesn't by and large make them anywhere comparable to Nazis.
Surely if it's an objective fact, then you have sources?
seconded!
An internal system operation returned the error "The operation completed successfully.".
You know, it's funny. No one to the left of Orrin Hatch would mistake me for a leftist. This has gotten me into no end of political tangles and dust-ups in the places I go. And yet, I've never been called a Nazi. Not even in jest, except in direct response to me pointing out that nobody ever calls me a Nazi, and I think we can all agree that doesn't count.
How can this be, I wonder? If you and I -rightists both- are so similar, how is it possible that you get called a Nazi all the time, yet I never do, even as a joke? I suspect it comes down to one critical difference between us: you are a Nazi, and I am not. Godwin's Law aside, most people really are savvy enough to tell the difference.
All nazis are, by definition, white nationalists, and all white nationalists are, by definition, racists. So you can't be a nazi without being a racist (whoda thunk!?).
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It... does.
But maybe we're speaking aside eachother. My point, if it wasn't clear, is not that companies can't put sanctions in place as an *employer*, it's that, ultimately, they can't take away unalienable rights. Such as free speech.
a citizen != an employee, after all.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
Nah, just everyone in the Slashdot comment section.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
I would do my best to save you and your family, if the world really turned to hell; I wouldn't be one of the regular population who just sat there hiding and complying.
And it shouldn't, however my view is very different.
I believe in accurately identifying who and what your enemy and problems are. If you aren't able to accurately identify what it is, you'll solve the wrong problem. This is why trolling on Twitter is becoming more creative and used against certain groups intended to protect others. When you can get the New York Times account suspended for reporting the news because all these new controls are addressing the wrong issues because they have the wrong idea of what the problem is, you're only going to give people who didn't have a weapon, a weapon now and they may not be the people who are on your side.
We have disgusting political groups that are misrepresenting the enemy of the public being particular archetypes (in recent years it's been gamers, disenfranchised youth), marking them as the enemy of issues that they many have no involvement with. People believe these groups and then call-out-culture, brings their followers to call-out these people where-ever they see it, the issue is that when you call-out someone over something that isn't quite true, you can't defend it. In turn, people the people calling out and then getting smashed in an argument, this leads people down to forming their own groups against this harassment, the political groups however will distort the purpose and meaning of these groups to be... What they were originally talking about to begin with, only reigniting the debate even further. In the meantime, this starts bringing more objectionable concepts to becoming normalized and... Well, you see what's going on.
The media on the other hand are happy as anything, normalizing all these hate messages and I made a pathetic attempt to stop it here in the comments on Slashdot through nerd rage. But, I see that isn't working. I'm not really sure what the pro-active solution is to reducing this.
I don't care what race/nation you're from, I'll defend your right to life from any sort of supremacist group.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
> Many of the "white nationalists"
Not "many", just ONE.
If you had any real clue about this stuff you might know what a real Nazi rally looked like. You might even have been to the places where they held such rallies.
Charlottesville and what happened there looked nothing like that stuff.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
The Nazi social and economic platform was left-wing - strong central government, high taxes on businesses, restrictions on capital, extremely strong worker protections, government controlled banking, strong social safety net (cradle to grave), mandatory free public education, powerful unions...
They were also massively racist and nationalist. All the policies described above only applied to Good White Germans (tm).
The Left says the Nazis were right-wing because Nationalism has been defined as 'Right-Wing' in Europe.
The Right says the Nazis were left-wing because socialism has been defined as 'Left-Wing' in America.
According to their chosen definitions, both sides are correct.
Pretty sure 'The Enlightenment' never addressed identity politics, [...]
Hoo boy it sure did. The early Enlightenment philosophers had a lot to say about Catholics, for example.
But you raise a good point. In the 18th century, Anton Wilhelm Amo could teach philosophy at a German university, but only because white nationalism hadn't been invented yet.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
> So, just like the far right Christians? Different identities, same attitudes.
I actually fear modern liberals MORE than fundie Xians when it comes to my sexual habits. At least fundies can distinguish between the sinner and the sin. Xian fundies seem to have far less real power. So me being a heretic from their point of view is far less dangerous for me.
That's not even getting into the current state of Islam.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
2. It's not all of a sudden, there is considerable precedent for shooting Nazis. Both my grandfathers, all of my great uncles and all of their friends used machine guns, rifles, bombs and hawker hurricanes on Nazis. A punch in the face is basically a gentle wakeup call.
3. if your worldview requires the subjugation of others, based on your assumed superiority, and you are scared of a middle aged white guy punching you in the face, your ideology is provably wrong.
The threat of organized racists is virtually non-existent. It is a bogeyman that the left and the liberal media need to prop up to justify itself. It's pure 1984 style nonsense.
The large number of people that declare that it's OK to engage in political violence just because of a label they choose to abuse is a FAR FAR FAR bigger problem.
It's a fundemental subversion of our founding values. It's even contrary to the work of our main civil liberties safeguard (namely the ACLU).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Well, that's arguable. An unemployed citizen can still vote (for the moment).
Well, the term "feminazi" does exist. It's not however the meaning that the bot authors seemed to imply.
There are no such attempts.
Not only have there been numerous attempts, they aren't even shy about them. You do not have to wait for your assailant's fist to actually land before you defend yourself.
The only people being violent are liberals.
That's wobnderful news. You should go tell that to Heather Heyer's family; I'm sure they'll be quite relieved.
>>Charlottesville and what happened there looked nothing like that stuff.
So they were not representative of the good and responsible white supremacists, you mean?
Not sure what "no true Nazi" you are thinking of, but the true Nazis I learned about gassed Jewish people (and others).
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
A favorite show of millions of millennials.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Of course the National-Socialist German Workers' Party never called themselves Nazis, the word was coined by their enemies.
Bullshit. There's a multitude of specific causes for which people can rally while they do not necessarily agree with each other on all other issues. I will rally for free speech in a crowd where there are Nazis, Sharia advocates, Commies and/or whoever else, wearing their respective symbolics, and that doesn't make me one of them. The rhetoric you're using here is often employed in an attempt to smear political opponents with a Nazi label.
where are these far right christians doing this? they make talk a lot of smack but i dont really see right wing christian violence, at least in america. The worst we got is the WBC who stand around with signs and sue people. hardly violent
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I disagree that it is dodging, it is simply pointing out that the group who is violently anti nazi (the communists) have actually done more harm than the nazis over the past 100 years and killed more people. It is assumed that no one likes the nazis except actual nazis
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
if they seriously are continuing to do those things, they fail miserably because they havent accomplished anything since 1945. maybe you can get over your boogieman
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
1.2) A person who seeks to impose their views on others in a very autocratic or inflexible way.
Interesting, seems like everyone is a Nazi then.
Well, everyone who posts stuff on internet forums.
Except me, of course...
Pretty much describes the modern day Left, eh?
Universities, Democrats, Media.
Oh, please!
While there are some people that would identify as "Left" that are pretty ridiculous and petty; they CERTAINLY don't have a stranglehold on conceit and narrowmindedness.
They're called Neo-nazi's.
Neo Nazi's what?
And they're quite distinct from Grammar Nazis (no apostrophe).
SJW n. One who posts facts.
You mean we do not need to clearly determine who is what and just act on a group in a group punishments sort of way? Wait have we not had that before?
Remember: whenever the Left start throwing "Nazi" around, they're trying to distract you from how bad Communism was. Sure, Hitler was remarkably evil, killing 6-10 million of his own people (whether he thought of them that way or not). Stalin killed 60 million. Mao killed 100 million. Hitler was 2nd tier.
Communism is objectively (measured by the number of citizens of its own nation an ideology killed) the most evil ideology in mankind's history. Yet Twitter cares not how often an account praises Communism and wished for it's return.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
There is a concern that the more companies and citizens abandon the ideals and change the culture, we will eventually abandon the legal protections. We have already seen similar erosion to due process on the University through Title 9 expansion (luckily being rolled back).
We force companies to protect the rights of citizens all the time. The Civil Rights Act is a prime example where we limit the rights of companies to protect the rights of individuals. At some point, it is reasonable to ask if the platforms of speech where the majority of political discussions happen be protected by the companies that enable it much like telecommunications and bakers protect the rights of their customers.
I thought I was being obvious, but apparently not obvious enough.
Never underestimate how hard it is to convey meaning in written content.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
One step further, we need a final solution to the Nazi's. amirite?
[No Nazi] chanted "blood and soil". None of them wore swastikas
You appear to be claiming that no nazi in Hitler's Germany chanted "blood and soil" or wore swastikas?
You do realise that almost all the official insignas of the Nazi Party had swastikas on them? That means a lot of actual, real Nazis from the actual real Nazi Party wore swastikas.
"Blood and soil" was a Nazi party slogan and an important part of its philosophy.
which people such as yourself will fastidiously disregard because it applies to you in all but symbology.
Ah I see you too have entered the "make shit up" part of the argument. It did not take you long, either.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The only people being violent are liberals.
Liar.
I expect you to "prove" your point by posting dubious links bus studiously ignoring any event where Neo-Nazis are being violent.
What I don't understand is why you're such a desperate apologist for Nazis. It's almost like you are disgusted with the democracy you live in and want to see it destroyed.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
It's the far right Christians who keep the war on drugs going. Where I am, this is leading to a lot of deaths, deaths that would be preventable by simply making drugs legally available. This doesn't even mention all the people who have had their lives ruined in other ways by the war on freedom/drugs led by the religious right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Sad!
Neo-Nazis are a different thing than Nazis. Nazis killed 6-10 million of their own people. Some of them are still alive. Neo-Nazis chant slogans and generally make asses of themselves in public, but they are (thankfully) missing half the Nazi ideology that made it popular with mainstream Germany.
If you mean "Nazi" as something beyond "person I disagree with", the distinction is important.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
neo nazis now support israel???? thats news to me.....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
i am against the war on drugs as well (if you couldnt guess by my name) but to equate that with physical violence in the name of religion is just silly
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I hope for your sake you are simply talking big on the internet... because if you act on what you are saying...
You are looking at assault charges at best, and getting you or your friend shot at worst.
Like many supportive of Antifa, you try to portray your actions as defensive or against evil... however under American law, self-defense goes out the window when there is no immediate threat. Do you fear they might act via the ballot box? That doesn't justify assault. Or do you think that at some point in the future they are going to go door to door, rounding up people they don't like and force them out of the country at gunpoint? Still doesn't justify assault when you are advocating for it.
Given the propensity and acceptance of masked violence on the left (Antifa being the latest incarnation), there is going to come a time when a pack of masked rioters in black are swinging clubs or rocks at someone on the ground who they view as an enemy, and there will be an armed person (likely on the other side, but possibly just a bystander) will see the immediate and potentially life threatening assault going on, draw their weapon and fire upon the attackers... possibly killing some.
Like it or not, what I describe above would likely lead to the shooter not even being charged, because acting in self-defense of ones self or others where there is a credible and/or immediate threat is generally justified. Beating someone who you think has bad ideas and may do something you disagree with in the future isn't.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Wait... Obama was a far right Christian?
You'd think given his eagerness to use a pen and a phone when he couldn't get his addenda passed legislatively, he would have done more to reduce the number of DEA raids of medical marijuana dispensaries in states where it was legal.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.sacbee.com/news/sta...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
https://www.politico.com/story...
http://www.sfgate.com/politics...
Take off your hate goggles for a bit and look around a bit more.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
As a both a liberal and a sane person, I agree that the existence of shit like you posted is counterproductive and silly. Just wanted to let people know that this is not a liberal cause, it's a wanker cause.
Well around here it is the religious who keep pushing the war on drugs and get really irate when anything is suggested to decrease the number of deaths, often basically saying they deserve it for not being Christian.
But staying away from the war on drugs, there are the residential schools here in Canada where the last one was shut down less then 20 years back. All run by the churches, responsible for the deaths of thousands of native children, even more torture and sex abuse, all in the name of beating Christian values into the heathens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
If the people you're protesting with are carrying communist flags and you don't see anything wrong with that, chances are you're a Commie?
What makes you think they are deflecting from communism - which no longer exists in any real sense, even as an aspirational manner, outside of North Korea - rather than critiquing fascism - which is a movement that has never gone away, and poses a real threat to liberal democracies across the globe? I don't see anyone with any sort of influence or power calling for anything more socialist than universal healthcare and progressive taxation. I do see a large number of people with influence and in power advocating fascist means and ends.
If I'm at a free-speech rally and nazi's with flags, and arm-bands show up I wouldn't be rallying with them and I suspect the vast majority of the people wouldn't either and would probably react to them.
I don't have common cause with Nazi's and I wouldn't accept and protest with them for anything. There beliefs are the very definition of evil.
The title should be Twitter shuts down censor bot. I am not sure why sayin* the bot is guided for a reporter or against âoeNazisâ is supposed to make it ok.
"Canadian" is a nationality, not an ideology. "Nazi" is an ideology - all you have to do to be one is to believe in the same ideas.
Whatever you want to call this:
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
That was, in German obviously, the Hitler Youth's slogan. A neo-nazi colleague of mine had the German words tattoo'd on his arms, hence me looking it up. Also what is "None of them wore swastikas -- that's a reference to Hitler's Germany, a sad romanticization of Hitler who (as we all know) lost the war and committed suicide." supposed to mean? Is Hitler not a Nazi all of a sudden?
Also, yeah, they wore jackboots. They're kind of famous for that actually. Camo pants on Nazis are a recent thing, though Nazis were really fond of militaristic trappings on their clothing, so I'm not surprised it's there, it's more or less an update. I'm not sure where the pilot jacket thing comes from. Shaved heads isn't universal amongst Nazis, now or then, but it dates back to the skinhead movement of which an off-shoot intermingled with Neo-Nazis for some reason.
This must the "I'm not a nazi, you're a nazi, so there, I win" school of thought. What about SM's comments make you think he's in favor of "white supremacy, racism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, violence for violence's sake, dismantling of the separation of powers, opposition to liberal democracy"? I've never seen him advocate any of that. Could it be that you made it up to make yourself feel better? I'm pretty certain that's it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
How about this....every year we brutally murder the 1% of the population most right-wing nutjob and the 1% of the population most left-wing nutjob. It will encourage everyone to try and be more open-minded and at least understand what the other side is saying.
And 2% of the population every year will help deal with over-croweding. We just have to tell the left-wing nutjobs it's good for the environment and the right-wing nutjobs it will reduce people from draining welfare and free health care.
because by and large racism is a tool of the aristocracy used to divide the working class into manageable groups. Re: Southern Strategy, Indian Caste System, China and Mongolia, etc, etc.
So it's possible, but it's generally difficult to have racism without autocracy. The two go hand in hand.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You didn't check hard enough. Inciting others to treason IS a crime, it's called "sedition", or "seditious conspiracy", or a more minor version of the crime which is called "disorderly conduct". You are right in that you don't deserve to be rounded up due to that - that would be a play straight out of the books YOU are reading, which probably feature large type and small words. They DO deserve prosecution and a fair trial, however, since they indeed ARE engaging in criminal behavior.
sedition
sdiSH()n/
noun
noun: sedition; plural noun: seditions
conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.
synonyms: rabble-rousing, incitement to rebel, subversion, troublemaking, provocation.
In 1798, President John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, the fourth of which, the Sedition Act or "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes against the United States" set out punishments of up to two years of imprisonment.
In the Espionage Act of 1917, Section 3 made it a federal crime, punishable by up to 20 years of imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000, to willfully spread false news of the American army and navy with an intent to disrupt their operations, to foment mutiny in their ranks, or to obstruct recruiting.
In 1940, the Alien Registration Act, or "Smith Act", was passed, which made it a federal crime to advocate or to teach the desirability of overthrowing the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization which does the same. This Act was invoked in three major cases, one of which against the Socialist Worker's Party in Minneapolis in 1941, resulting in 23 convictions, and again in what became known as the Great Sedition Trial of 1944 in which a number of pro-Nazi figures were indicted but released when the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Although unused since at least 1961, the "Smith Act" remains a Federal law.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Bernie is on the record supporting murderous bastards (Castro), he took his fucking wife to Lenin's tomb for their honeymoon. Supported the most murderous philosophy of the 20th century.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I don't know any policies around cultural appropriation. The wikipedia article on the subject points out that most people who bring it up do so in the context of either a) the culture being disrespected or b) copywrited material being used without permission. Can you site some of these studies? The ones I've seen have mostly been either from right wing think tanks or the occasional nutter from a local community college writing some clap trap for a thesis. Yeah, the left has it's nut cases too, but we don't let them write policy.
Also, you're completely misunderstanding the problem with immigration. It's refugees. People who didn't immigrate here, they were forced here on threat of death. It's hard for these people to assimilate because, really, they just want to go _home_. But they can't. Ever. I'm not sure what do to with them, to be fair, besides wait for their children to grow up and out of their parents old culture. Either that or let them be slaughtered in their home countries.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I am still waiting for you to explain the difference.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
LARPers.
Fake Right.
I am Jack's writable stack pointer.
And let's hope it stays that way for a while longer. ;-)
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
What's that got to do with the fact that you wrote a post pointing out the bleeding obvious to everyone?
Well, I certainly concur with your last part. ;-)
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
how to you get "I killed them so they must be a Nazi" from "kill the Nazis"?
and who modded this backwards logic up?
horror vacui
Iâ(TM)d love to take this Twitterbot to the next level. Any suggestion?
?
If you're talking about the parent post you responded to; that was not made by me. So I can't answer your question for you.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
So those chaps making Nazi saultes, chanting "blood and soil", wearing swastikas and so on---what would you call them exactly?
If you want a good argument about it, I suggest you try arguing with this chap:
I've known both veterans of the Wehrmacht and little old Jewish Ladies with numbers tattooed on their forearms, those asshats posers you are talking about are Neo-Nazis,
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
> The Nazis were left wing as well.
Horseshit. They used a left leaning name, but were fascist through and through. This technique is still in use today - in British Columbia for example the provincial Liberal party is in reality a right wing corporatist party. And people still get fooled "But, duh, it says 'Liberal' in their name!!!"
People are free to speak. Generally, no-one is forced to provide them a platform.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
>So all of a sudden it's "acceptable" to be violent towards someone because they have different views than you, but only if it's a certain subset of different views.
Deeds, not words. Last time there was a Nazi rally, who got killed? Hint - it wasn't a Nazi, it was the Nazi doing the killing.
Because that's how murdering works! Also known as "dead men don't tell no tales".
As long as one does not try to deprive them of the means or possibility to get a platform, that is. Also, one should not be hypocritical about it, and pretend one is for free speech, but then stifling it, or claim one is doing anything else then censoring or being biased on 'their' platform towards the speech one doesn't like.
Also, I've been pondering how far one can take this. What do you think?
Imagine some bloke in China gets thrown in an isolation-chamber because of his speech, and laments his lack of free speech. If the guards then said: 'what do you mean, you can speak freely about all you want, in your cell, so there is no problem anymore." they would be technically right, mayhaps, but everyone will note something wrong with this.
And if they said: "we deport you out of china; we're not obliged to provide you a platform, after all." Would/should one consider this not an infringement of free speech? Maybe the law in China allows it, even for the government, and they use the same argument "not being forced to provide a platform'... so... it wouldn't be an infringement of speech?
Well, I'm only pondering aloud. :-)
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
So, what are your sexual habits? If they're despicable, well, the fundies seem a lot more likely to excuse them than leftists are. If not, what's your problem? What do you think we want to do?
Does it actually hurt you when people of the same sex marry? Do you bleed when a transsexual gets gender conversion therapy? Is it an imposition to not harass women? What we want to do is give everyone the opportunities that cisgender heterosexuals have.
The current state of Islam is somewhere else. Muslims aren't a significant problem in the US. They aren't a major threat anywhere outside the Middle East.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You know what Stalin and Mao liked? Breathing! I'm sure that you'll take the hint.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You know why they did more harm? They lasted longer. We had to take Nazi Germany and militarist Japan down fast and hard. We could live with the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China around. My best estimates are that the Nazis and Japanese were murdering people at roughly twice the rate of the USSR and PRC. I'm unlikely to be off by a factor of two.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I think you're painting too rosy a picture of how things used to be.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There are people nowadays who consider themselves Nazis (ironic, since members of the NSDAP didn't), revere Hitler (referred to as "Him" and "He" in a neo-Nazi mailing list I was on for some time), and follow Nazi ideology. I consider them to be Nazis.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
'I find calling them nazis for short to be acceptable. The fact that they exist today inherently means that they're neo-nazis'
I agree with you.
'There are vanishingly few differences...'
I disagree. Few neo-nazis will be angry about the humiliation of the Versailles Treaty, or demanding an overthrow of the Weimar Republic. Few will be concerned with the threat from 'Jew-Bolsheviks'. Outside central Europe I doubt many neo-nazis are advocating unification of the German-speaking peoples in a single nation, nor military conquest of Lebensraum for this nation (although I confess I haven't looked for recent polling data on these questions).
Hitler was first tier. That's why we had to take him down before he could do as much damage as the second tier could do. The only other country to match Hitler was Japan, which we also had to take down. We could live with the second-tier atrocities.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
National Socialism was right-wing after the left-wing elements were eliminated in the mid-30s. At that point, it defined its enemies by race and nationality, not class. Its economy was capitalist, and for the most part there were fewer controls on the economy than Britain or the US used during WWII. In these and other ways, it had the worst excesses of the right wing, much like Communism in the real world had the worst excesses of the left wing.
Would someone care to tell me what they thing the left-wing policies of the NSDAP were? When I've asked before, I've been told that authoritarianism was left-wing, which is stupid; authoritarianism is largely orthogonal to left-right.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Nazi social and economic platform was left-wing
The idea that "right" equals laissez faire capitalism, less government, libertarianism or whatever is a very recent construct and has no historical worth. From your list, the only clear left-wing policy would be "strong social safety net". All the others were present on both sides.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Ask me how I know you're white, or at least not black.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And now right wingers openly march with swastikas and Nazi slogans.
No. Now nazis openly march with swastikas and Nazi slogans. Here's a topic you can study so as to better understand how this works.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
You are a brainless baby boomer. You have no concept of war or conflict. You think wars can be avoided by cowardice just like you avoid every real challenge in your life. You are a coward and you will be eaten alive no matter which side wins.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
Yeah, because Islam is a religion of peace. And Brutus is an honorable man.
Here's the problem: You have no idea what a Nazi is.
You've been trained on war propaganda and narratives crafted to uphold it after the facts. You look at history the same way as you look at your movie and television shows. You don't realize it as part of your life.
The problem is that Nazis are much more dangerous than you can possibly imagine. They can live on next to nothing in the way of material and they can endure endless abuse without changing their minds. They have firm principles proved by fire.
You should care a lot more about what a Nazi really is. Because the kind of authority that you support will send YOU against the Nazis first.
You would be eaten alive with no resistance. You have absolutely no fortitude in any arena. Better hope the cracks in your society don't keep widening.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
I think you're painting too rosy a picture of how things used to be.
For immigrants they were quite bad, and still are, but my comment wasn't about that, it was about cultural effects at large.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Actually, not that many members of the NSDAP gassed Jews and other untermenschen. Most tried to pretend nothing like that was happening.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Would someone care to tell me what they thing the left-wing policies of the NSDAP were?
Basically strong worker protections and a strong social safety net (both for whites only), plus direct governmental oversight of the industry. A good comparison point would be, let's say, the policies advocated in the UK by the Fabian Society in the early 1900's. Which, if you check the link, included eugenics.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I'm wrong, you win.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Oh, I'm sorry. I retract my previous use of the word "everywhere", it should be "multiple". There, fixed.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Here's the problem: You have no idea what a Nazi is.
Oh it's YOU. Given you have your own, private definition of "Marxist" which doesn't match anyone else's I would bet that you have your own private definition of "Naiz" too. Except I wouldn't get good odds on that bet.
The problem is that Nazis are much more dangerous than you can possibly imagine.
No, because I have a much better imagination than you.
They can live on next to nothing in the way of material and they can endure endless abuse without changing their minds.
I think you're confusing "Nazis" with "terminators".
They have firm principles proved by fire.
No they don't: they have a random mishmash of stuff a large amount of which involves blaming other people for their problems.
"proved by fire" lol what unmitigated BS!
Because the kind of authority that you support will send YOU against the Nazis first.
given how divorced from reality you are, I doubt you have any idea what kind of authority I support.
You would be eaten alive with no resistance. You have absolutely no fortitude in any arena. Better hope the cracks in your society don't keep widening.
It almost sounds like you're looking forward to a Nazi uprising. You're almost slavering for it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
If you mean "Nazi" as something beyond "person I disagree with", the distinction is important.
Given I'm not a straw man, why on earth would you think I've ever meant that. You've never seen me say that because I have never said it. This is just you inventing a position for someone you regard as one of teh libruhlz, so you can attack more easily.
I'm happy calling someone who subscribes to Nazi ideology and who is heavily into Nazi symbolism as a Nazi, whether Neo- or otherwise.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I disagree that it is dodging, it is simply pointing out that the group who
Yeah that's called dodging. In a nutshell, what some non-Nazi group has done has zero bearing on whether or not Nazis are bad. Bring up some other group mid discussion is an attempt to divert the discussion.
What I want to know is why.
It is assumed that no one likes the nazis except actual nazis
Have you actually read the comments on this thread? It's stiff with Nazi apologists.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I was judging by 2 a. My opinion of Trump isn't high, but I wasn't referring to the mention of Trump. I was referring to the use of Merriam-Webster in the example in relation to the counter argument against the use of nazi. White nationalist, white supremacist, and racist all fit 2 a. However, racist is a broader term and only a subset of racists would qualify for the moniker.
What's it like to be a brainless slave that that works for no pay and likes doing it?
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
Then you are quite easy to manipulate into not rallying.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
If it looks like a Nazi, Smells like a Nazi, holds the same views as a Nazi, and salutes like a Nazi, it is acceptable to call it a Nazi, and then punch it in it's stupid, ignorant, bigoted, Nazi, face.
Ok. Do you know how did the Twitter bot find out the smell and salute of the operators of those accounts which it calls are "Nazis" ?
Or did the designers of the Twitter bot go and find their smell and salute ? I don't see any evidence in the article linked in this /. story. Do you have that missing evidence ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
If they look like a Nazi, quack like a Nazi, make heavy use of Nazy symbology and espouse the same values, it's reasonablt to call them Nazis.
If you don't mind going back to the actual topic :
1. So the looks of those Twitter account operators were verified by the "bot" to be similar to those of Nazis ?
2. Their quacks ? Hopefully they had Nazi quacks archived somewhere for future reference ?
3. Symbology : this is interesting, because allegedly they adopted Jewish symbology - the tiny cap, pictures of Rabbis, labels like chief Rabbi of such and such place etc.
Do you have evidence that the bot or its operators had any evidence about actual Naziness of the operators of Sock Puppet Accounts (TM) ?
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
As for "Smell", well, that's just plain hyperbole, an exaggeration for comic effect. Because it amuses me to say that Nazis smell.
I'm not sure what Nazis smell like to be honest; failure, disappointment, self loathing, urine, Axe body spray and the musty odor and their mothers basements. Possibly with a hint of Meth. That's my hypothesis anyway.
Why don't we test this?
We can crowdsource this experiment: anyone here who is currently a Nazi, ask at least three random strangers (not other Nazis, obviously, if my hypothesis is correct and they share a similar scent, then yours will not be noticeable to them) to smell you, and then report your findings ;)
The designers evaluated known Nazi users based on specific criteria, symbology, stated beliefs etc
Humanly ? Any process used to eliminate bias ?
and then designed a bot to identify duplicate accounts held by those who fulfilled those criteria.
This has always intrigued me. How do bots accomplish this ? They also need to make sure that these "sock-puppet" accounts copy pictures / symbology from the attacked community e.g. Jews - because this is one of the main accusations in TFA about them. TFA should have explained much more, or I missed something.
Because it amuses me to say that Nazis smell.
Well, you can say this for all humans, both ways. I.e. all humans emanate odour, and most detect odour through their noses. What is really amusing is when you can feel the smell in your eyes :)
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I have a much data as you do, the article.
"This has always intrigued me. How do bots accomplish this ? They also need to make sure that these "sock-puppet" accounts copy pictures / symbology from the attacked community e.g. Jews - because this is one of the main accusations in TFA about them. TFA should have explained much more, or I missed something."
You have missed something. The point is that the sock puppet accounts are initially more innocuous, and express less strong views (e.g. the actual main account holder may be a full on seig heil, swastika wearing rabid Nazi, but the sock puppet account will present as a more reasonable, strong Trump supporter, and attempt to steer people towards certain views, or attack opponents of Nazis). The point is that they do not cross pollinate pictures or symbols. they hide what they are, and attempt to draw people in to connecting with far right accounts, sharing far right memes, bosting the profile of far right accounts etc. It's a technique pioneered by ultra right scumbags Britain First in the UK, who encouraged sock puppets to share innocuous memes about supporting the troops, or ending animal cruelty. Every share boosted the rankings of the Britain First account and exposed more people to their more hideous ideas, and gave the appearance of a strong base, when in reality, their base was very small, but utilizing the power of the vast majority of unwitting people, who all agreed that supporting the troops was good, and animal abuse was bad.
I'm not sure how the bots identified them, shared emails possibly.
"What is really amusing is when you can feel the smell in your eyes"
I'd refer you to my previous comments regarding hyperbole...but you go on, keep cherry picking. In the meantime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You don't even know what racism is. You have much less idea what a Nazi is.
What is racism? Why is it bad?
What is a Nazi? Why is it bad?
"because everyone is equal because some one said it's true and I'm poor and it makes me feel better about having to submit so humiliatingly to this society"
In reality there are differences between races based in genetics.
https://www1.udel.edu/educ/got...
In reality people are happier in homogeneous societies.
http://archive.boston.com/news...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
In reality, up until literally one microsecond ago on our evolutionary timeline as hominids, everyone always lived in homogeneous communities.
How do you justify the change?
You can't, because you're so brainwashed you won't let yourself ask an honest question or even have an honest thought, you are stressed and anxious and all you care about is fitting in.
This makes you subhuman, not your race. This is what real Nazis think.
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
What's it like to be a brainless slave that that works for no pay and likes doing it?
Well, that's new!
Setp 1: Rant about evil boogeymen uh SWJs in username
Step 2: Post astonishingly ill-informed rant on a discussion forum
Step 3: respond to comments with agressively off topic non sequiteurs
Heres a clue: if you're utterly unable to address a single one of my comments then it means the position you are arguing for has no foundation whatsoever. A rational person would reconsider their position at that point.
Out of interest, what job do you think I do as a mindless slave for no pay? I'm curious!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm not sure how the bots identified them, shared emails possibly.
They take so much care to not cross pollinate, and then go ahead and use shared emails which are trivial to create en masse so that they don't have to share emails. Interesting.
You have missed something. The point is ....... unwitting people, who all agreed that supporting the troops was good, and animal abuse was bad.
I didn't ask how it is done, I asked how it is detected, that too by bots. First the article and now you, giving exactly the information that is useless, but just tantalizingly close to the real thing. I think you're trying to "steer people towards certain views", but it is not working for me. Try on sheep.
If the article had any evidence of having evidence of the "sock-puppet accounts" belonging to Nazis, I guess they could have provided. Such long winded justification that you are having to manufacture is weak evidence of the article being bullshit. Along with there being no evidence of it not being bullshit that I have been pointing out. I'm still not concluding it is bullshit, but leaning that way, provisionally.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
and "I think you're trying to "steer people towards certain views", but it is not working for me." Tu Quoque attacks? Really?
On a side note: "giving exactly the information that is useless", "Try on sheep", "it is not working for me". Are you deliberately missing the point of what I am saying, or is English not your first language and just a translation thing?
Question :
and then designed a bot to identify duplicate accounts held by those who fulfilled those criteria.
This has always intrigued me. How do bots accomplish this ?
Your long answer : not about how bots identify duplicate accounts but how duplicate accounts are created, what is posted in them, what every such data share from sock puppets accounts achieves etc.
The only time you went anywhere close to answering the question was a vague guess about shared emails.
I have specifically pointed out that I have no more information about their methodology than is presented in the article
I will try to never again accuse you of having any information.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Actually, your questions was: They also need to make sure that these "sock-puppet" accounts copy pictures / symbology from the attacked community e.g. Jews - because this is one of the main accusations in TFA about them. TFA should have explained much more, or I missed something.
Spot the question mark.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Well, given the phrasing "or I missed something" the question mark is implied, and given your non-standard English structuring, was reasonably assumed to be absent in error. And given that my answer clearly referenced this question, and answered this question, you would have to actively be trying to misunderstand to think that I was answering a question on a methodology I would only have access to if I were involved in the creation of the bot.
my answer clearly referenced this question, and answered this question
The question, if that part was a question, was posed to the TFA. Anyway, how did you answer it ? You describe a completely different strategy from the one described in TFA - where there is a seeming impersonation of e.g. a jew, rabbi etc.
only have access to if I were involved in the creation of the bot
Which is why "or I missed something" is prefixed with disappointment about the TFA.
Anyway, you admit your ignorance and I couldn't agree more.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Bless.
You're confusing me with yourself, it is you who tried to insult me. Though reality, on the other hand, has insulted you more, as you were trying to make statements about subjects you didn't know much about. I'm sorry but I played no part in it.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
I'm unaware of the strong worker protections. I know the Nazis didn't mind disrupting white workers' lives. Direct governmental oversight of industry doesn't seem to match with what I've read of German industry before about 1944, and even then the Germans were doing less to regulate industry than the US or UK were. For example, the US War Production Board assigned certain aircraft manufacturers to produce certain types of aircraft under license, and I haven't found anything similar in Germany.
The reason I didn't bring up eugenics is that that, like the anti-vaccine movement, was from both right and left sources. That's not a distinguishing factor.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm unaware of the strong worker protections. I know the Nazis didn't mind disrupting white workers' lives.
It's ambiguous for sure, but while some things became clearly worse, others became better, and the ones that did became better had a lot of approval. The main one seems to have been the almost certainty of having and keeping a job. This text seems to me to offer a balanced view. From our perspective definitely not a good situation by any means. From 1930's German workers' perspective though, not really bad.
In addition, there were initiatives to help families as long as they submitted to the Nazi program. My grandaunt used to tell me how her mother, for example, was repeatedly offered more food for the family and several other welfare benefits if she just accepted having a fourth child (she had 3), but she didn't want to hear any of that and remained with only three (she also did her best to keep her children from becoming nazis, so there's that too). It was all very weird, but in some way it worked and white Germans were, if not happy, at lest not unhappy.
Direct governmental oversight of industry doesn't seem to match with what I've read of German industry before about 1944
That's also ambiguous. Industrialists were frequently members of the Nazi party and very close to the Nazi leadership, so they received tons of benefits. On the other hand, they also were expected to do everything for the benefit of the Nazi program, and where they weren't doing it the Nazi government simply went in and nationalized the thing. So while formally there might not have been explicit rules and stuff for most of it, in practice there was. The Wikipedia article has more details on these movements, although not as detailed and with concrete examples I'd like to have.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
We get it you're a paid shill with bot-level intelligence
My karma was manually wiped by site staff https://slashdot.org/~slshdtisctrldbysjws 18 mod up, 10 mod down = bad karma
Putin? Are you insane? What the fuck does Putin have to do with my comment? For the avoidance of doubt I am a leftist but the modern left like the original poster make me puke and I want nothing to do with what is effectively a hate movement not much better than those they oppose.
We get it you're a paid shill
Paid by whom?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Let me get this straight... You're calling ME a Nazi? Fuck you, dumb shit. I am liberal in my general views on things but conservative on some others. If you think me pointing out the definition of "sedition" makes me a Nazi then you are a truly an oxygen-thieving waste of skin. Go find someone else to bully, SJW fucktard, you're too stupid to see when someone else is basically on your side of things, and would rather engage in mindless argument since my post "sounded" authoritarian. What a useless troll you are, "bro-ham". God I hate that meathead term. Get a life.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
Speak for yourself. I disapprove of all forms of ethno-nationalism, even Israel's.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I did query your first language, however that was not an insult, merely an attempt at clarification of a possible miscommunication, if it came across otherwise I apologize. In terms of insults, looking back, I insulted hypothetical Nazis. But the only way you could have been insulted by that, is if you self-identify as a Nazi. Which seems unlikely. But if you do. Well, then...yeah...I have no regrets.