What's new
Frozen In Carbonite

Welcome to FIC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mosque Shooting in New Zealand - Multiple confirmed casualties

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Where's the lie?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. You are one of the biggest trolls on this website. I get that it's all in good fun for you & the spectators, isn't it Rufus? Regardless,I will defend your right to troll while at the same time holding you accountable for the language you use when addressing other human beings. Hold me accountable for when I do the same thing! Please!
See previous answer to previous accusation of such.
And that's a side point I felt compelled to address that, honestly, I regret making. It was too combative. My real concern is I will not have you muddying the discussion by claiming the smokescreen tactics used by internet money gifters is mere 'trolling.' Trolling is human-to-human interaction. Headlines & news articles? Media narratives you hear on TV? Politically driven memes? That's propaganda, not trolling. And we have businesses that have made an art of selling propaganda to their audiences, because real news & real journalism doesn't make any money. Selling people a story, confirming their biases, telling them that THERE ARE PROBLEMS that need to be faced for the future of family and country? Just make donations here, support that candidate, brigade this person's inbox, etc. That's not trolling.
There’s a working solution for this: regulation of political content in media. Limit the time in which political campaigning can be done, both in and out of mass medias - so, TV, radio, paper ads, etc., regulate it to remove political ads and ensure equality of access for candidates. It works.

The organized mass media issue has been considered by many countries. The big issue everyone is trying to tackle is the disorganized mass media, internet, and how to avoid some deep shit to keep happening harder and harder without destroying our freedom.

And there is an issue that can’t be ignored safely. It cannot exactly remain a free for all area, not with the importance it achieved and the capability it has to encourage radicalization of people, in politics, religion, etc. It doesn’t mean we need to go full China, but we have to face the ugly reality that the internet is a destabilizing element for society in increasingly dangerous ways. If we don’t, then I fear it’ll end up wih a Chinese solution.
 

ScreenXSurfer

Ain't no bitch who can do it like me
See previous answer to previous accusation of such.
Fair enough.

There’s a working solution for this: regulation of political content in media. Limit the time in which political campaigning can be done, both in and out of medias, regulate it to remove political ads and ensure equality of access for candidates.

The organized mass media issue has been considered by many countries. The big issue everyone is trying to tackle is the disorganized mass media, internet, and how to avoid some deep shit to keep happening harder and harder without destroying our freedom.
I do agree with some of these points. The difficulty is in America, this isn't easy to implement. The argument comes down to 'who gets to decide' and that is something that Americans, as a rule, distrust greatly. For the same reason we distrust our government, because of people like Trump inheriting the power. It will also require legal cases to bubble up to the the Supreme Court, which isn't an overnight solution. This isn't something where a "try democracy for once" answer is going to solve anything.

People with bigger pockets will always have more opportunity to speak regardless of regulation. They can just fund other people who's ideas that align with their own. Would the elite rather have a $10,000 donation from 20 charismatic individuals, or those 20 charismatic individuals constantly putting out narratives that make those elites look good to the masses?

Then there's the grassroots movements, where a lot of this vile white nationalism comes from. It's not like they have big platforms. They're in the weeds. But so are many, many other viewpoints that don't align with them. Do we bring the foot down on all these voices, making it harder for them to be heard, because they're using the same platforms as radicalizing terrorist? I certainly would not want to, because then that amplifies the reach of the powerful statusquotarians who can fund platforms that spread their message.
 

50 Icy Spear Mends Space

Well-known member
Temp Banned
Yep, you went there as I pretty much expected someone to do, activating my classical trap card: the ones doing the most to fight the islamists like ISIS are... the Muslims, actually. Who do you think has been on the ground, fighting and dying to eliminate these assholes? Who do you think make the bulk of the informers and sources for Western intel agencies? Who do you think has the most victims of islamist terrorism? Them. It's a fun thing to voluntarly ignore, but it shows only the problem in your reasoning.

So, yeah, there would be any modicum of equivalence if ISIS was considered by Muslims as "heh, something we just have to deal with". Which is not the case. They do acknowledge there are some rotten apples, and they act, rather than just saying "meh". Actually not supporting the troll culture as "just some fun and laughs" and questioning oneself would be nice.
Yes, because there are no Radical Islamic Terrorists outside of ISIS.
It works.
It doesn't:
 

Lord Inquisitor Adornable

The Community Outreach Mod
Moderator
Yep, you went there as I pretty much expected someone to do, activating my classical trap card: the ones doing the most to fight the islamists like ISIS are... the Muslims, actually. Who do you think has been on the ground, fighting and dying to eliminate these assholes? Who do you think make the bulk of the informers and sources for Western intel agencies? Who do you think has the most victims of islamist terrorism? Them. It's a fun thing to voluntarly ignore, but it shows only the problem in your reasoning.
You're being incredibly disingenuous here Rufus, ISIS overwhelmingly targets other muslin groups. It's a matter of survival that they fight against this aggressively expansionist Salafi jihadist proto-state, because if they don’t they'll just end up conquered. This conflict says nothing of the moral or ethical fiber of the actors involved.

Now I don't believe all Muslims = ISIS, just to be clear, but you can't infer moral superiority from the mear fact this conflict exists.
 

KeresAcheron

Asocial Quasisocialist
Yes, because there are no Radical Islamic Terrorists outside of ISIS.
The point, is that western far right terrorism deserve the same level of systemic opposition that Islamic terrorism does. And the system being referred to predates the formation of ISIS. Since said "pro-western" terrorism is killing more people in western countries than is Islamic terrorism, it in fact deserves the same level of effort and types of strategies used prevent islamic terrorism. You know, informants, imams cooperating with authorities, winning hearts and minds within the community, ect.

Of course this would involve treating the internet like a public space where activity online is equivalent to actions in real life. And of course the same people who championed the war on terror when it was their outgrip being targeted will complain about being held to the same standard as everybody else, but at this point it would be more irresponsible for the government not become involved.
 

50 Icy Spear Mends Space

Well-known member
Temp Banned
Since said "pro-western" terrorism is killing more people in western countries than is Islamic terrorism,
-9/11
-Pulse
-Bataclan
-Nice Truck-kun
-Charlie Hebdo
And of course the same people who championed the war on terror
Who are these "people" you speak of? I've been anti-authoritarian since the womb. Which is why I hate the people that are all "at least Bush wasn't as bad as Drumpf!".
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
I do agree with some of these points. The difficulty is in America, this isn't easy to implement. The argument comes down to 'who gets to decide' and that is something that Americans, as a rule, distrust greatly. For the same reason we distrust our government, because of people like Trump inheriting the power. It will also require legal cases to bubble up to the the Supreme Court, which isn't an overnight solution. This isn't something where a "try democracy for once" answer is going to solve anything.

People with bigger pockets will always have more opportunity to speak regardless of regulation. They can just fund other people who's ideas that align with their own. Would the elite rather have a $10,000 donation from 20 charismatic individuals, or those 20 charismatic individuals constantly putting out narratives that make those elites look good to the masses?

Then there's the grassroots movements, where a lot of this vile white nationalism comes from. It's not like they have big platforms. They're in the weeds. But so are many, many other viewpoints that don't align with them. Do we bring the foot down on all these voices, making it harder for them to be heard, because they're using the same platforms as radicalizing terrorist? I certainly would not want to, because then that amplifies the reach of the powerful statusquotarians who can fund platforms that spread their message.
Oh, I am definitely not saying it would be easy to implement, but it’s something that has to be discussed in detail quickly now because the alternative is pretty ugly. Right now, the internet becomes a resonance chamber for the worst in us all, be it religious, politics, economics, etc., and there isn’t much done to stop this trend.
  1. Wanna compare with the amount of violence in the States? It wouldn’t be nice for you of I start looking at mass shootings.
  2. This was about the issues of polarization in general caused by journalism and the media, in which the regulation helps a lot to prevent the worst and to keep political life sane, AKA not being in a state of constant electoral campaign where mass media are increasingly drowned in political ads.
You're being incredibly disingenuous here Rufus, ISIS overwhelmingly targets other muslin groups. It's a matter of survival that they fight against this aggressively expansionist Salafi jihadist proto-state, because if they don’t they'll just end up conquered. This conflict says nothing of the moral or ethical fiber of the actors involved.

Now I don't believe all Muslims = ISIS, just to be clear, but you can't infer moral superiority from the mear fact this conflict exists.
I do infer a false equivalency when it comes to portraying a difference in behaviour between the groups. Is there a shining moral superiority anywhere? Fuck no. But I am quite pissed off by the omnipresent excuse of ‘it’s ironic’ and ‘it’s to trigger the lefties’ as a means of waving away the fact that there is a real problem of toxic behaviour that isn’t even accepted. It’s as if I said, as a Catholic, that there isn’t a widespread issue of pedophilia within the Church by using some bad-faith excuse about the numerous cases.

Being ironic about propagating nazi stuff, about inciting to violence, about spreading fake news all over the place, about threatening with death and/or rape doesn’t remove all of these. One does not get out of consequences by saying that it was being done ironically. Our internet culture based on being disconnected from our RL identities has led to some deeply fucked-up behaviour which is having real life consequences. Acknowledging that rather than saying it’s all fun and giggles, good times ‘triggering the libtards’ would be a good start. Among the people who denounce the generalizations about Muslims, you won’t find many, if any, saying that Salafism isn’t an issue that must be stomped hard. So it’d be nice to stop seeing people saying that the political and societal trolling and harassment campaigns from SJW and from ultraconservatives is ‘justice’ or ‘ironic triggering’ or whatever nonsense rather than what it is, harassment and deliberately fucking with everyone else.
 

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.

Erwin_Pommel

Kill all fluffy wuffy bunnies
Wanna compare with the amount of violence in the States? It wouldn’t be nice for you of I start looking at mass shootings.
Issue, most of them aren't even terror attacks, just nutjobs. So it doesn't really work as a retort to their arguement of which is focused on terror attacks. Then there's the population issue but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
 

50 Icy Spear Mends Space

Well-known member
Temp Banned
Wanna compare with the amount of violence in the States? It wouldn’t be nice for you of I start looking at mass shootings.
?
This was about the issues of polarization in general caused by journalism and the media, in which the regulation helps a lot to prevent the worst and to keep political life sane, AKA not being in a state of constant electoral campaign where mass media are increasingly drowned in political ads.
Right, which didn't impact terrorism. Specially considering NZ isn't part of the States
 

ScreenXSurfer

Ain't no bitch who can do it like me
If there's one bad side of globalization is that people see problems in countries that aren't even theirs, and they identify with it and they make it their own problem. Maajid Nawaz became radical from the Kosovo genocide. This guy became radical from conflict between Muslim immigrants and Europeans. And I suppose it's interesting, being American, and having everybody in the world have an opinion on our elections and candidates to the point that teenagers in New Zealand are spreading memes about it like what the f*** I'm so confused by this to this day.

It's A Brave New World out there
 

TankTreads

Well-known member
Holy shit. Watched the vid. Kinda wish I didn't. Please, don't watch it. You will suffer a SAN loss, guaranteed. o_O

He tipped off 8chan that he was going to do it, linking to his Facebook livestream. I suppose one of them capped it. Apparently, he was an 8chan /pol/ user. He shouted "Subscribe to PewDiePie" at the beginning of the vid. The sick motherfucker filmed it in first-person, like a goddamn FPS, with a headcam.

I'm pretty sure he reached maximum edge when he killed several small Muslim children.
He played this while arriving:


And he played this while fleeing:


Confirmed 100% basement-dweller. Probably sleeps with a KanColle dakimakura of Bismarck.
 

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.
This man may actually will himself into /pol/ godhood at this rate.

I'd make a joke about how Bubble the love Sponge is planning an amazing honeymoon, but this guy is going to be a neo-nazi VIP in prison.
He'll be VIP in segregation from the rest of the population, lest he find himself shanked by admirers.
 

t-dugong

Beach bum, Esq.

The Dark God

Well-known member
Author
I’ll likely apply it to extremist online movements in gen and not name any political grouping.
I do not know how but I would suggest a group effort to map and codify as much as you can the trends, patterns and systems of Alt-Right meme warfare in a fully anaylized format to be used as a tool in identifying such content on the site.
Though I also suggest making sure to reduce false postives as much as possible so the censoring does not go too far but mainly at this point Alt-Right ideas and thoughts should be considered dangerous hazards for the mental health and possible lives of others if they rot the brain of someone. A full examination as much as could be capable of being done is needed to be a new part of site policy. Though I would also in the researching of these trends and systems be worried about someone being radicalized if exposed to these hazards and they are hazards. They are rot and poison, and they are a erosion of morality, law, ethics and all other virutes you can think of and they can corrupt.
 

Rufus Shinra

Well-known member
Issue, most of them aren't even terror attacks, just nutjobs. So it doesn't really work as a retort to their arguement of which is focused on terror attacks. Then there's the population issue but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
In terms of per capita, the difference remains staggering, the population argument not working as an argument. And the number of attacks still illustrates pretty well the tensions.
?

Right, which didn't impact terrorism. Specially considering NZ isn't part of the States
I was answering then a specific post about the level of propaganda and idiocy in US media.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top