# Mass tagging reddit users - What are your thoughts?



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 13, 2018)

So this thread is half me shilling (what I think) is a very useful extension, and half me wanting to be curious as to what people think of this type of concept. Given how the extension is by it's nature political, I think the best place to post it would be here, but apologies if I'm wrong about that.

So basically, there is this reddit extension called masstagger, made by /u/morpen. It's purpose is to tag posters to far-right reactionary subreddits (the_donald 'n co.) as well as "manosphere subs" (subreddits like incels or MGTOW), Nazi subs (honestly, take your pick) and the more "gateway"-esque communities to these kinds of spheres (TumblrInAction, SJW-hate subs, furry hating subs).

If you want to see if you've been included in this tagging database, go to https://masstagger.com/user/<reddit_username> . In addition, if you have the extension installed, you can whitelist people at that page.

The extension is very configurable and let's you select colors for each individual sub (it defaults to red for all subs) and a minimum posting threshold or disable specific subreddits.

Now for the discussion portion:

What are your thoughts about this type of extension. The concept obviously isn't new, sites that can issue RES tags based on sub activity have existed before (this extension specifically was born out of a RES tagging list, which eventually got unwieldy, so the data was moved to a proper server). The advantage of this is that these comments are listed forever, meaning that even if a subreddit gets banned (like the recent QAnon subs or incels), a user will still be registered in the database.


My opinion is that I find it to be an incredibly handy extension, as it makes it easy to discover when a user is likely to be arguing in bad faith (as in: they're not arguing for the sake of argument, but they're arguing to recruit people into the alt-right or whatever other shitty ideology they frequent).

I've seen people compare it to "yellow starring the Jews" (then again, this extension gives the handy insight that this type of comment is mainly from CringeAnarchy/drama posters, so take it as you wish), but I personally believe this doesn't really apply, because unlike the starring of the Jews in WW2, the choice to post in those types of subs is voluntary, unlike the way the Nazis determined who was Jewish and who wasn't.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 13, 2018)

Wasn't a similar extension used by white supremacists to quite literally just tag Jews?... how is behavior like that prevented here?


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Wasn't a similar extension used by white supremacists to quite literally just tag Jews?... how is behavior like that prevented here?


This extension is closed source and the developer has to add subs manually (to which the easiest way is contacting the dev on reddit through PMs or on the /r/masstagger sub), which prevents this behavior.

From what I've seen in the weeks I've used this extension by now, the dev is rather fast with adding new subreddits to the list and hasn't added any subs that were submitted by obvious shits in a malicious attempt to do what you just described.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Wasn't a similar extension used by white supremacists to quite literally just tag Jews?... how is behavior like that prevented here?


It isn't prevented, the use of the tool is up to the individual user.  At the same time, you're probably not going to know who on Reddit is Jewish unless you're making a whole lot of assumptions.  It's more just to avoid people from subs you don't like, or recognize when you're being trolled or getting roped into a bad faith conversation.


----------



## Hozu (Sep 13, 2018)

Anyone can use it to tag users from literally any sub, so it's not a huge deal. Maybe if you don't want to be identified as a user from a certain sub, you shouldn't post there?


----------



## Chary (Sep 13, 2018)

It's sorta judging a book by its cover, no? Everyone freaked out when the alt-right used something like this to know which people were "SJWs" or "Clinton supporters" and hound them for it. Now the shoe's on the other foot, and I find it equally distasteful. Regardless, Reddit's a cesspool anyway.

(Tho, if it keeps me away from leftover incels...lol)


----------



## dimmidice (Sep 13, 2018)

Seems pointless. People post on those subs to oppose those ideas. People troll. People get lost. People use alt accounts. So really there's no point to this.


----------



## Hozu (Sep 13, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> Seems pointless. People post on those subs to oppose those ideas. People troll. People get lost. People use alt accounts. So really there's no point to this.



Eh, you can use it to help determine whether or not someone is arguing in bad faith. Save yourself some time from engaging someone who clearly has a predetermined opinion rather than someone who is genuinely unsure.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Sep 13, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> Seems pointless. People post on those subs to oppose those ideas. People troll. People get lost. People use alt accounts. So really there's no point to this.



k, i agree with a lot of that, but you don't just get lost in these crazy subreddits and become an active member without agreeing with these places, thus making your inclusion justified.

also, if it also gets rid of trolls, all the better


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 13, 2018)

My problem with this is that people will no longer want to talk to those who they don't agree with. Example lets say this plug ID person X as apart of the "right".

You no longer want to talk to them? You don't even know them? Sounds extremely closed minded.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 13, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> Seems pointless. People post on those subs to oppose those ideas. People troll. People get lost. People use alt accounts. So really there's no point to this.


Perphaps to clarify a bit then: if you click on the badge of the user it takes you to that whitelisting page, which contains all the comments they've left. Of course, while usage is still up to diligence by the user, it's possible to manually investigate the nature of those comments, which helps to find the people that post there to oppose the ideas, rather than those that post there because they agree with them or because they accidentally miscommented.

As far as alting goes, it's not obviously not a perfect solution, but it can help clear out a sizable enough portion of the bad faith arguers.


----------



## dimmidice (Sep 13, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Perphaps to clarify a bit then: if you click on the badge of the user it takes you to that whitelisting page, which contains all the comments they've left. Of course, while usage is still up to diligence by the user, it's possible to manually investigate the nature of those comments, which helps to find the people that post there to oppose the ideas, rather than those that post there because they agree with them or because they accidentally miscommented.
> 
> As far as alting goes, it's not obviously not a perfect solution, but it can help clear out a sizable enough portion of the bad faith arguers.


Problem is there's no value in tagging them. If they're spreading bad shit on other pages it's easy enough to tell it's bad shit. Pointing out they post on X doesn't add anything to the discussion, just point out why it's wrong. If they're talking good things on another sub well then there's no point to call em out. The only reason this is useful is to count if they're shilling. But that's a small percentage. Because the bad shills are obvious, the good shills use a clean account. So this would only catch the mediocre ones.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 13, 2018)

dimmidice said:


> Problem is there's no value in tagging them. If they're spreading bad shit on other pages it's easy enough to tell it's bad shit. Pointing out they post on X doesn't add anything to the discussion, just point out why it's wrong. If they're talking good things on another sub well then there's no point to call em out. The only reason this is useful is to count if they're shilling. But that's a small percentage. Because the bad shills are obvious, the good shills use a clean account. So this would only catch the mediocre ones.


It helps weeding out dogwhistlers and concern trolls, something which usually is only possible by manually investigating their comment history in those subs. Effectively, the extension cuts out the busywork of having to do that for me.

(ie. When the latest Battlefield got announced, a bunch of folks got salty over it not being historically accurate because you could play as a black person. When investigating the comment histories of the majority of these people, it became apparent that the majority was KotakuInAction posters, which changes the more innocent sounding argument of "black person in the vidya game isn't accurate to WW2" into the less innocent argument of "we don't want to see black people in the vidya game".

If someone doesn't have a tag, yet makes an argument that is parroted by these types of people, it's less likely that they're a concern trolls or an alt, but more likely someone who is just confused.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Sep 13, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> My problem with this is that people will no longer want to talk to those who they don't agree with. Example lets say this plug ID person X as apart of the "right".
> 
> You no longer want to talk to them? You don't even know them? Sounds extremely closed minded.



You know where trying to talk to them and submitting to bipartisanship brought you? To a place in history after the 2nd World War and the rise and fall of nazi germany, where an almost identical nazi ideology is somehow rising again, seemingly unchallenged by any laws, rules and good people. Having an open mind in talking to people like that implies there is some middle ground but historically, if the good side agrees to some middle ground, the bad side advances and then acts as if there ought to be a middle ground again, as if no compromise had been made before. And they do that until they walzed right over the good side.
Politically, 6 ridiculous years of democrats working out bipartisan deals with reps, where reps usually had more say in most things, leading to a crippled at arival ACA and countless other undermined political endeavors ending with reps stealing a supreme court seat and then acting like all those last years, they never had a single say in anything happening while also chronically denying dozens of hard facts and statistics showing that america has been made great again years ago.

Not that the internet has ever been a good place for talking to one another like this anyways. The internet isn't a public forum, so no one needs to act decent.
Not even actual public forums need to anymore. Since the most indecent of groups have enough propaganda channels to create a second reality for those dumb enough to follow them.


----------



## CallmeBerto (Sep 13, 2018)

@Clydefrosch 

" where an almost identical nazi ideology is somehow rising again, seemingly unchallenged by any laws, rules and good people." Where? In the USA? A lot of people think Trump supporter = alright = white supremacy or nazi however finding either a nazi or a white supremacist is VERY rare. Nah everyone who I don't agree with is automatically a nazi. I mean for the love of god we live in an age were people can say ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST and nobody blinks an eye.

Talking =/ there is some middle ground

Nah I mean flat earthers are special but we just point and laugh at them. Now if you point me at someone who is saying we need to kill all the brown people or whatever then call me and I will be on your side.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 13, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> " where an almost identical nazi ideology is somehow rising again, seemingly unchallenged by any laws, rules and good people." Where? In the USA? A lot of people think Trump supporter = alright = white supremacy or nazi however finding either a nazi or a white supremacist is VERY rare. Nah everyone who I don't agree with is automatically a nazi. I mean for the love of god we live in an age were people can say ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST and nobody blinks an eye.


The problem is that people who identify as the alt-right are _very_ willing to go and bat for the Nazis or the KKK (white supremacy), which if you don't consider it sharing those beliefs (I personally think that if you're willing to go and defend that version of trash, you at the very least share some of their unique beliefs), should at the very least be highly concerning.

Also that last statement doesn't lead to a long trail of documented violence from people who say that towards white people (not counting the one or two incidents, but nutjobs are everywhere), whereas the alt-right has a long documented trail of violence in it's wake.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

My thoughts? Very very good. If you keep driving these people underground, they will end up growing stronger in secret. Then when you think you've gotten rid of all the make believe nazis, you're going to have actual nazis coming up and establishing the fourth Reich whether you like it or not. Why is this is a good thing? It's not, but it will be funny to see.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> My thoughts? Very very good. If you keep driving these people underground, they will end up growing stronger in secret.


No, they just go to Voat, one of the shittiest platforms on the internet.  A fitting punishment, really.

Here are the geniuses you expect to organize themselves and attract more support:



			
				GreatAwakening said:
			
		

> Jiggaboo fagnigger.
> 
> Jigaboo, jigaboo where are you?
> 
> ...



https://voat.co/v/GreatAwakening/2715869

_Really_ important and valuable discussion happening there.  /s


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> No, they just go to Voat, one of the shittiest platforms on the internet.  A fitting punishment, really.
> 
> Here are the geniuses you expect to organize themselves and attract more support:
> 
> ...



Look at pedophiles. They were driven underground during the Web 2.0 transition. They still thrive, and they're getting exactly what they want. These "nazis" are politically motivated, and they'll end up getting exactly what they want in the end. Good job!


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Look at pedophiles. They were driven underground during the Web 2.0 transition. They still thrive, and they're getting exactly what they want. These "nazis" are politically motivated, and they'll end up getting exactly what they want in the end. Good job!


It's the same amount of pedos though.  Same amount of neo-nazi fuckwads too.  They aren't gaining support by being driven off of Reddit.  If anything they lose some support because of the transition to a shittier platform.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 13, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's the same amount of pedos though.  Same amount of neo-nazi fuckwads too.  They aren't gaining support by being driven off of Reddit.  If anything they lose some support because of the transition to a shittier platform.



According to The Gild, a brand consultancy agency: 
"A survey of almost 2,000 UK adults finds that on issues such as same-sex marriage, transgender rights and marijuana legalization, 59% of Gen Z respondents describe their attitudes as being between ‘conservative’ and ‘moderate’. By contrast, 83% of millennials and 85% of Gen X respondents state that they are ‘quite’ or ‘very liberal’ on such issues.
14% classified themselves as quite conservative on such issues. You figure out what that means. And you need to remember countries that don't speak English. Poland could very well be the next setting of an ethnostate, and perhaps something resembling a 4th Reich. It's on the rise my friend, and one little subreddit being banned won't change that, but it _will_ strengthen their resolve.

The only way you can stop them is by engaging in fair, honest, and open debate. Just remember if they beat you, that you just contributed to their cause. Good luck.

(I'm not worried at all, since once people actually get debating, I know that economical theories such as Austrian economics are correct in their assumptions)


----------



## Xzi (Sep 13, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> 14% classified themselves as quite conservative on such issues. You figure out what that means.


It means nothing.  14% is very low, at least 30% of American voters identified with the "alt-right" before there was any talk of supposed "censorship."



Attacker3 said:


> The only way you can stop them is by engaging in fair, honest, and open debate.


They've never been the least bit interested in that.  They just want an echo chamber/safe space to post lynching memes and child pornography.  Any attempt at good faith discussion or debate gets you insta-banned from alt-right subs.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 14, 2018)

> It's purpose is to tag posters to far-right reactionary subreddits (the_donald 'n co.) as well as "manosphere subs" (subreddits like incels or MGTOW), Nazi subs (honestly, take your pick) and the more "gateway"-esque communities to these kinds of spheres (TumblrInAction, SJW-hate subs, furry hating subs).



That is a curious collection of things to be grouping there. Not sure what value there would be to grouping them to people in general.

Anyway the internet is more than what your browser presents back to you*. If people want to take data from other sources, collate it and display it alongside it then more power to them. Not sure why people are crying potential abuse, and closed source type developments like this usually get abandoned thus I would instead look for a more freeform solution which anybody can code their own regex type thing for (adblock has lists you subscribe to, simple concept there). I would discourage dismissing people, much less purely on the basis of joining what appear to be wide ranging discussion groups (even leaving aside my issues with such a grouping the potential for "false positives", and always attempt to engage them** but if you don't care to play then enjoy your echo chamber.

*a favourite video


**the entire time I have been doing this internet lark I have never blocked anybody that was not asleep on the keyboard nor just going for volume spam. To block people, much less people you or yours have not vetted individually, seems counterproductive.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 14, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> That is a curious collection of things to be grouping there. Not sure what value there would be to grouping them to people in general.


They tend to often argue in bad faith or concern troll in other subreddits.



FAST6191 said:


> Anyway the internet is more than what your browser presents back to you*. If people want to take data from other sources, collate it and display it alongside it then more power to them. Not sure why people are crying potential abuse, and closed source type developments like this usually get abandoned thus I would instead look for a more freeform solution which anybody can code their own regex type thing for (adblock has lists you subscribe to, simple concept there). I would discourage dismissing people, much less purely on the basis of joining what appear to be wide ranging discussion groups (even leaving aside my issues with such a grouping the potential for "false positives", and always attempt to engage them** but if you don't care to play then enjoy your echo chamber.


I'm not saying someone should be dismissed for a non-political comment (ie. on a comment of a cute cat picture, I'm not gonna give a shit if you have a posting history in CringeAnarchy or KotakuInAction or wherever), but if you see a response I made earlier in the threat, not everyone argues in good faith.

The problem is that a lot of posters to these types of subs (and in general with these beliefs) tend to echo-chamber themselves heavily, and when you bring in stuff like facts you end up getting called (and this is me paraphrasing something of which I can show you proof in PMs if you want me to that has been actually said to me when I noted how a lot of a persons arguments about gamergate were either weak or false): "an ideological SJW with a gender studies degree" and either banned (if youre on their turf) or blocked. This goes for by far the majority of people with posting histories in extreme reactionary subs, so why bother spending the mental brainpower and effort into arguing with them if all it earns you is some jackass besmirching your name with stupid statements or harassment from his buddies (didn't happen to me, but i've seen enough people who did have this happen to them).

As far as more freeform solutions go, a github version that lets you select your own subs also exists, but that deals with the limitation that API-wise you can only retrieve a subreddits first 1000 posts, which this extension manages to bypass by storing it centrally (and the extension itself is relatively easy to reproduce if one were to be so inclined).


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 14, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> They tend to often argue in bad faith or concern troll in other subreddits.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying someone should be dismissed for a non-political comment (ie. on a comment of a cute cat picture, I'm not gonna give a shit if you have a posting history in CringeAnarchy or KotakuInAction or wherever), but if you see a response I made earlier in the threat, not everyone argues in good faith.
> ...




It seems rational and properly reasoned arguments and good faith is in short supply wherever I go these days. Personally I am still hung up on the stupidity of the "black people can't be racist" stuff that some tried to float a while back (and that was not any of the people in the groups mentioned in the OP, indeed they were probably laughing at it). That said for myself I would still rather not block or dismiss unknowns to me. Not to mention the flames keep me warm and a smile on my face, not that I get any around here.


----------



## DinohScene (Sep 14, 2018)

A tool used by tools to cancer up discussions with their political bullshit.
What could possibly go wrong!?


----------



## linuxares (Sep 14, 2018)

Wow... that tool shouldn't exist.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 14, 2018)

DinohScene said:


> A tool used by tools to cancer up discussions with their political bullshit.
> What could possibly go wrong!?





linuxares said:


> Wow... that tool shouldn't exist.


I suppose it depends on what subs you frequent. I frequent subreddits that tend to contain thought pieces on video games, so figuring out who are the gators (and therefore are arguing in bad faith, because someone who nowadays still posts on KiA can't use any defense for themselves anymore, given how shit Gamergates behavior is) in a discussion can be incredibly helpful.

Not to say there isn't a risk of abuse, there certainly is, but personally I find it to be a utility that at the very least makes me aware of who I'm arguing with. (for example, if the subject is gay marriage/relationships in games and I see that someone posted in /r/againstgaymarriage and I see someone disagreeing on it, I can at least be aware of that I probably either should engage differently with that person (namely more to convince their opinion to mine instead of trying to defend my own opinion).)

Of course there will be people that misuse it and an argument about brigading/inciting hate could be made, but I also think there is a positive usage to such a tool.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Sep 14, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> So this thread is half me shilling (what I think) is a very useful extension, and half me wanting to be curious as to what people think of this type of concept. Given how the extension is by it's nature political, I think the best place to post it would be here, but apologies if I'm wrong about that.
> 
> So basically, there is this reddit extension called masstagger, made by /u/morpen. It's purpose is to tag posters to far-right reactionary subreddits (the_donald 'n co.) as well as "manosphere subs" (subreddits like incels or MGTOW), Nazi subs (honestly, take your pick) and the more "gateway"-esque communities to these kinds of spheres (TumblrInAction, SJW-hate subs, furry hating subs).
> 
> ...


Mines just blank? I guess I don't care, it's a bit weird, like if ppl you know know your username, they can maybe blackmail you with this, but at the same time, if they know it they can look up post you made anyway?


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 14, 2018)

As mentioned I don't use reddit, however seeing the passion people seem to have for this blocking lark and having encountered stellar debate tactics from many of the groups mentioned at the start I am going to have to assume it is just that reddit itself is awful. Thanks for the confirmation.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 14, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> As mentioned I don't use reddit, however seeing the passion people seem to have for this blocking lark and having encountered stellar debate tactics from many of the groups mentioned at the start I am going to have to assume it is just that reddit itself is awful. Thanks for the confirmation.


Reddit is absolute garbage. Imageboards such as 4chan would be preferable to it, because everyone has an equal say. New threads are at the top which allow for people of any ideology to find a good debate, because if your debate is active then you'll be at the top more.

Reddit incentivizes going and preaching to the choir in order to get karma. The less karma you have, the less likely it will be seen by others. That's silly for political debate.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 14, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Imageboards such as 4chan would be preferable to it, because everyone has an equal say.


Which gives equal weight to people spamming racial slurs or derailing conversations every chance they get.  Complete lack of moderation is a double-edged sword.  IMO the internet was better when it was mostly a ton of niche forum communities.  All social media platforms are garbage in one way or another.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 15, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Which gives equal weight to people spamming racial slurs or derailing conversations every chance they get.  Complete lack of moderation is a double-edged sword.  IMO the internet was better when it was mostly a ton of niche forum communities.  All social media platforms are garbage in one way or another.


Imageboards have rules and moderation staff too y'know.


----------



## tbb043 (Sep 15, 2018)

Arguing in "bad faith" aka not agreeing with my extreme leftist views...


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 15, 2018)

tbb043 said:


> Arguing in "bad faith" aka not agreeing with my extreme leftist views...


When someone argues in bad faith it means that they're arguing for the sake of arguing, they're not debating with the intent of reaching the optimal result for the issue at hand. They're the people who aren't worth engaging because no matter what the subject is they've already decided that no matter what is said their views won't change


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 15, 2018)

tbb043 said:


> Arguing in "bad faith" aka not agreeing with my extreme leftist views...


Dogwhistling and concern trolling are examples. Those are the types of people that argue in bad faith.

They don't argue to reach a cooperative result, or their stance is something where a midway result will still favor them (it's a bit of a cruddy example, but "gas the Jews" and "don't gas the Jews", if you go midway with "let's gas some Jews", the gas the Jews people will still have a more favorable result).


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 15, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Dogwhistling and concern trolling are examples. Those are the types of people that argue in bad faith.
> 
> They don't argue to reach a cooperative result, or their stance is something where a midway result will still favor them (it's a bit of a cruddy example, but "gas the Jews" and "don't gas the Jews", if you go midway with "let's gas some Jews", the gas the Jews people will still have a more favorable result).


"Instead of gassing the Jews, let's lock them up; it's more humane"


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Imageboards have rules and moderation staff too y'know.


If 4chan has moderators then they log in like once a year.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If 4chan has moderators then they log in like once a year.


You obviously haven't been on there. Go ahead and start spamming and see how long you last.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 16, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If 4chan has moderators then they log in like once a year.


From what I know, they're decently active, it's just that 4chan has no rules against hate speech. The only things that usually get cleaned up is shit like CP or porn on the safe boards/furry shit outside of /trash/ and /b/.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 16, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> From what I know, they're decently active, it's just that 4chan has no rules against hate speech. The only things that usually get cleaned up is shit like CP or porn on the safe boards/furry shit outside of /trash/ and /b/.


Exactly.  Not much point in having moderators if there are basically no rules.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 16, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> From what I know, they're decently active, it's just that 4chan has no rules against hate speech. The only things that usually get cleaned up is shit like CP or porn on the safe boards/furry shit outside of /trash/ and /b/.


Hate Speech doen't exist my dude. There's speech that certain people don't like, but speech is speech my duder.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Exactly.  Not much point in having moderators if there are basically no rules.


The rules are to
1. Not spam
2. Have quality discussions
if you have more rules than that then your site sucks. GBAtemp has good rules, and so does 4chan. You won't have better convos on these 2 sites.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 16, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Hate Speech doen't exist my dude. There's speech that certain people don't like, but speech is speech my duder.


"*Hate speech* is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity."

Straight from wikipedia.

The mere fact that some peolpe use racial slurs is factual proof that hate speech exists. The fact that my country has a party that hates muslims _to the degree where they want to commit actual censorship by banning the Quran _is a factual proof that hate speech exists.

It's proof that 4chan is a den of hate speech, we only need to look at people like Eliott Rogers (adopted the incel methodology which massively grew on r9k for his shooting, was martyrized by the incels) to realise that saying that hate speech is indeed a thing on the internet and certainly is an issue (I could cite other examples, such as the top 10 times T_D incited violence, the Charlottesville rally being an example).


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 16, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> *C*harlottesville rally being an example).


Speaking of which, you know that he was being chased by an ANTIFA member with a rifle, right?


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Speaking of which, you know that he was being chased by an ANTIFA member with a rifle, right?


Why the fuck would you make excuses for a guy who committed murder?  It's no wonder two-thirds of terrorism was tied to ring-wing extremists last year, the right-wing goes so far as to actually defend this shit.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...hirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Why the fuck would you make excuses for a guy who committed murder?  It's no wonder two-thirds of terrorism was tied to ring-wing extremists last year, the right-wing goes so far as to actually defend this shit.
> 
> https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...hirds-us-terrorism-tied-right-wing-extremists


Because perhaps it wasn't murder, and perhaps someone with an AR-15 (who's a person part of a domestic terrorist organization) chasing you down would scare you enough to GTFO of there? Just saying my friend, maybe you should consider the other side, instead of going for things that mirror your expectations.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 17, 2018)

I am ok with this as it gives me the information I need to avoid some people. NAZIs and "alt-right" (which are still Neo-NAZIs with a different name) love to integrate into communities and pose as normal members, while making small dog whistles that attract more trash to the sites. I know there's a few these boards that's been trying for years and it would be nice to have them taken out of the shadows.


Attacker3 said:


> Because perhaps it wasn't murder, and perhaps someone with an AR-15 (who's a person part of a domestic terrorist organization) chasing you down would scare you enough to GTFO of there? Just saying my friend, maybe you should consider the other side, instead of going for things that mirror your expectations.


It's funny how a group who's not committed a terrorist act nor threat are labeled terrorists for wanting to stop NAZIs
Why would anyone want to consider the other side with far-right groups? They want people dead for just living their lives, there's no need to "consider their side."


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Because perhaps it wasn't murder, and perhaps someone with an AR-15 (who's a person part of a domestic terrorist organization) chasing you down would scare you enough to GTFO of there? Just saying my friend, maybe you should consider the other side, instead of going for things that mirror your expectations.


There's literally zero evidence for what you're claiming.  I've heard other similar excuses, that people attacking his car somehow "made him" drive into the crowd, but when you watch the footage it clearly debunks that.  He had a ton of clearance from the crowd and every person near by.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 17, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Speaking of which, you know that he was being chased by an ANTIFA member with a rifle, right?


The fact you chose to not try standing up against my main claim re:Rogers means youre tacitly agreeing hate speech exists then?

And that's not related to the point I was making. The Charlottesville incident was instigated and celebrated on t_d. My point was proving that hate speech exists, not to get in the details of who shot what, why and where. I don't care about the apologism for the incident that you're trying to push, the point is that it happened and was both egged on and celebrated by an online community, therefore being absolute fact that digital hate speech exists.

(Although I find it interesting that your only source to that guy being an antifa member is a google search for "antifa domestic violence", instead of listing any actual valid source stating this was an antifa member. So if this claim has any grounds, link me a reputable source (sites like Breitbart, Daily Stormer and InfoWars don't count, to pop those sources early, they're biased sources)).


----------



## Joe88 (Sep 17, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> It's funny how a group who's not committed a terrorist act nor threat are labeled terrorists for wanting to stop NAZIs
> Why would anyone want to consider the other side with far-right groups? They want people dead for just living their lives, there's no need to "consider their side."


Causing personal violence, mass property damage, and rioting in the name of politcal affiliation or ideology is pretty much the definition of terrorism. 
Don't think exactly like us? Didn't vote for a certain person? Try to voice an opinion other then our own? Well then you're a nazi and deserve to have violence committed against you.
These are the kind of loose definitions that antifa puts out and its extremely dangerous and doesn't belong in this country. A few states have even took things in their own hands like NJ which listed antifa as a domestic terror organization.

This bill in particular was introduced to the house, the Unmasking Antifa Act which is actually a modified version of laws that were used to crack down on the KKK in the pure sense or irony.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6054/text?format=txt

They themselves call them anti-facists but they are the real facists at the end of the day.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> They themselves call them anti-facists but they are the real facists at the end of the day.


Two-thirds of terrorist acts in the US were committed by right-wing extremists in 2017.  Antifa doesn't work as an excuse to erase the facts.  Not that I support any type of extremism, especially considering Antifa are primarily anarchists, and anarchy in modern America would lead to the same type of authoritarian oligarchy that the neo-Nazis want in charge.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> There's literally zero evidence for what you're claiming.  I've heard other similar excuses, that people attacking his car somehow "made him" drive into the crowd, but when you watch the footage it clearly debunks that.  He had a ton of clearance from the crowd and every person near by.






https://archive.is/gF1iR
https://archive.is/wQb58




Ev1l0rd said:


> The fact you chose to not try standing up against my main claim re:Rogers means youre tacitly agreeing hate speech exists then?


No, I just don't see any point in arguing with someone about this. You can definitely say something is "hate speech", but in the eyes of the law AND the constitution, speech is just speech. There are no qualifiers mentioned in the first amendment.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Joe88 said:


> They themselves call them anti-facists but they are the real facists at the end of the day.


It's kinda funny and it's kinda sad at the same time. The people who want peaceful discussion nowadays is the right, and the left win usually thinks that's a bad thing. If you can't defend your ideas, then your ideas are inferior. If these "nazis" are so gosh darn wrong, then just debate them and ruin them! The thing is they can't because they are worried, because deep down they know they are just as bad. That's why they cover their faces.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 17, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Causing personal violence, mass property damage, and rioting in the name of politcal affiliation or ideology is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
> Don't think exactly like us? Didn't vote for a certain person? Try to voice an opinion other then our own? Well then you're a nazi and deserve to have violence committed against you.
> These are the kind of loose definitions that antifa puts out and its extremely dangerous and doesn't belong in this country. A few states have even took things in their own hands like NJ which listed antifa as a domestic terror organization.
> 
> ...


From what I can see, the "antifa" group is mostly a fringe group. The concept of what it's a shorthand for (anti-facism is what antifa means in full for the unaware) should be something that everyone who isn't a goddamn facist should aim for. (And as I describe below, the alt-right definetly qualify as facists).



> Don't think exactly like us? Didn't vote for a certain person? Try to voice an opinion other then our own? Well then you're a nazi and deserve to have violence committed against you.


Maybe I should give my definition of a Nazi:

Someone who desires for a government that silences all criticism against that government (this is facism) and specifically desires some type of ethnostate (this is unique to the Nazis, which is what history high school class over here specifically pointed out).

Funnily enough, this specifically could summarize the concept of the alt-right, and specifically the Trump presidency with overwhelming evidence:

Trump has stated that he wants to censor criticism of his government, has demanded the identity of websites criticizing him and his inauguration shortly after being president (hello facism) and only just recently seems to have wanted to regulate google searches and has demanded the NYT to hand over the writer of the anonymous op-ed (which is censorship because Trumps general behavior surrounding it has made it rather clear he _doesn't_ intent to simply sit down and have a nice chat with him).
Continuing on this train, Trumps constant commentary on Mexicans during his rally (funnily enough he hasn't brought them up anymore after getting into office) and the fact that he can't even _denounce the leader of the Ku Klux Klan supporting him_ seems to suggest that Trump also desires for some kind of ethnostate, namely one that is foreigner free and doesn't have black people.
If I may be so bold to ask, what does that image even intent to represent? It seems to contribute little to any actual subject of your main body (namely critcizing the antifa) and seems more intent on criticizing the left in general than anything else.



Attacker3 said:


> No, I just don't see any point in arguing with someone about this. You can definitely say something is "hate speech", but in the eyes of the law AND the constitution, speech is just speech. There are no qualifiers mentioned in the first amendment.


...except you used this point to deride the concept of adding in rules to a community against hate speech, which means that the point you were making is invalid.

Just because something is or isn't in the law doesn't make it "right". Yellow starring the Jews was a law in Nazi Germany, this doesn't mean it's a right law. Hell, it wasn't. Saying that the law doesn't care isn't an argument here. Assuming a community has any kind of self-respecting morals, they ban hate speech, regardless on if the law says they should or shouldn't.

Also, not the entire world revolves around America. Hello, I'm Dutch. Over here we actually have laws that prevent people from rallying others to commit violence.



Attacker3 said:


> It's kinda funny and it's kinda sad at the same time. The people who want peaceful discussion nowadays is the right, and the left win usually thinks that's a bad thing. If you can't defend your ideas, then your ideas are inferior. If these "nazis" are so gosh darn wrong, then just debate them and ruin them! The thing is they can't because they are worried, because deep down they know they are just as bad. That's why they cover their faces.


I'm sorry for not desiring to hold a discussion with people that think that other people should either die because of their ethnicity (racism), just "change their sexuality to being straight" (hello homophobia) or "can't be born into the wrong gender, nor can they change it if they so choose" (hello transphobia, and just to clarify, outside of medical purposes, there is no ground for any kind of enforced sexuality).

See up above as to why I think that the alt-right specifcally are Nazi's, going by the book definition of what classifies them as a Nazi.

And please, calm on the ad hominem at the end. As you can hopefully see, I can more than easily enough hold my ground against the Nazis.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 17, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> And please, calm on the ad hominem at the end. As you can hopefully see, I can more than easily enough hold my ground against the Nazis.


Oh, you're antifa. Didn't realize. Sorry my friend, I don't speak with terrorists.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 17, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Oh, you're antifa. Didn't realize. Sorry my friend, I don't speak with terrorists.


Come again?

Being against Nazis is a _bad thing_ now?

Note that I'm not calling you a Nazi, I was just hoping that I could make it clear that given how I'm able to argue in this thread should also hopefully show that in the case of actual goddamn Nazis I can easily decimate them and their shit ideologies.

The ad hominem is the implication that me and anyone who doesn't debate the Nazis is and I quote "worried because deep down they know they are just as bad as them".

Actually, you seem to just have equated anyone with left beliefs under the banner of antifa.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

(Also just to clarify: I'm not a part of the millitant antifa group, since I forgot to explicitly state this, but that should hopefully be clear)


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> View attachment 143545


So even your own evidence contradicts you, it says he chased him off that block _before_ the guy decided to ram into a crowd with his car, not that he chased him into the crowd.  Even if he was literally chasing him into the crowd, the onus is still on the driver to use his goddamn brakes.  Open carry is legal in just about every state, so unless he had started firing his rifle, the only person committing a crime was the driver.  The second amendment applies even to groups/organizations you don't like.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> So even your own evidence contradicts you, it says he chased him off that block _before_ the guy decided to ram into a crowd with his car, not that he chased him into the crowd.  Even if he was literally chasing him into the crowd, the onus is still on the driver to use his goddamn brakes.  Open carry is legal in just about every state, so unless he had started firing his rifle, the only person committing a crime was the driver.  The second amendment applies even to groups/organizations you don't like.


Wow imagine if people were threatening you, and you had to get out of there ASAP.


Him admitting it on video, and a block away he waved a gun, and right before he accelerated by the crowd someone smacked the back of his truck What the heck do you think is going to happen? He might've thought he was being shot at. If you look at the footage, he's trying not to hit anyone until they start swarming him and hit his car.

He even cried when he realized someone had died. I highly doubt he meant for anyone to be hurt, he just got spooked after a gun-toting mob attacked his car and threatened his safety.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 17, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> Wow imagine if people were threatening you, and you had to get out of there ASAP.


The footage shows him going straight through a four-way intersection and into the crowd.  I would've just taken a left or a right because I drive on roads, not on people.



Attacker3 said:


> Him admitting it on video, and a block away he waved a gun, and right before he accelerated by the crowd someone smacked the back of his truck What the heck do you think is going to happen? He might've thought he was being shot at. If you look at the footage, he's trying not to hit anyone until they start swarming him and hit his car.
> 
> He even cried when he realized someone had died. I highly doubt he meant for anyone to be hurt, he just got spooked after a gun-toting mob attacked his car and threatened his safety.


Both the neo-nazis and antifa were heavily armed at this event, if the guy was so easily spooked by the sight of a gun then he shouldn't have been there in the first place.  Hell, if he's that easily spooked into jamming his foot on the gas, he probably shouldn't have had a driver's license either.  It doesn't change the fact that individuals are responsible for their actions.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Both the neo-nazis and antifa were heavily armed at this event, if the guy was so easily spooked by the sight of a gun then he shouldn't have been there in the first place.  Hell, if he's that easily spooked into jamming his foot on the gas, he probably shouldn't have had a driver's license either.  It doesn't change the fact that individuals are responsible for their actions.



While I don't necessarily disagree on the notion of if you can't handle the heat and have not vetted anything about this stuff now under discussion what you describe is not necessarily how the law works. You cause a stampede (and making threatening gestures with , or perhaps pointing, a weapon would fairly easily qualify for that one) and that ends up on you even if you sit pretty throughout it all, indeed the whole fire in a crowded theatre legal thought experiment is pretty much this.

Anyway I sense people are talking past each other. On the matter of antifa some are sticking to the narrative of "it's an action you do" and others are looking at the uniform, common base from which it draws, handbook, consistent patterns of action, marginal coordination and saying while they might be broadly independent cells or patterned on something like Anonymous calling it a group and according it equivalent status is not really a stretch. Sticking to one when you mean the other is not helpful, and might even be one of those bad faith argument tactics that are apparently so popular and egregious.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 17, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Both the neo-nazis and antifa were heavily armed at this event, if the guy was so easily spooked by the sight of a gun then he shouldn't have been there in the first place.  Hell, if he's that easily spooked into jamming his foot on the gas, he probably shouldn't have had a driver's license either.  It doesn't change the fact that individuals are responsible for their actions.


haha yes don't run from an angry mob haha, just like, let them attack you, dude!


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 17, 2018)

Joe88 said:


> Causing personal violence, mass property damage, and rioting in the name of politcal affiliation or ideology is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
> Don't think exactly like us? Didn't vote for a certain person? Try to voice an opinion other then our own? Well then you're a nazi and deserve to have violence committed against you.
> These are the kind of loose definitions that antifa puts out and its extremely dangerous and doesn't belong in this country. A few states have even took things in their own hands like NJ which listed antifa as a domestic terror organization.
> 
> ...


Expect looking into them the majority of what they've done has just been counter protest and most act of violence have been against publicly exposed Nazis. They actually haven't committed any real acts of terrorism.
That's not what they are actually about. It's a movement to expose and to stop the very public raise of Nazism. They aren't targeting innocent people just walking down the street, they are going after people who've already revealed themselves as Nazis. I fail to see how going after people who've already publicly shown that they want to kill people is a problem.

I find it impressive that they are often called "Fascist" when in reality they show no Fascist ideologies. They aren't pushing for an authoritarian government that can't be criticized. They aren't pushing for extreme Nationalism. They aren't pushing for a military government. Despite what most people believe they aren't pushing for extreme government censorship. The only thing they are pushing for is exposing and stopping the raise of Alt-Right/Neo-Nazism that has become extremely public these days. The reason why this is a threat is because Trump is a Fascist.



Attacker3 said:


> Wow imagine if people were threatening you, and you had to get out of there ASAP.
> 
> Him admitting it on video, and a block away he waved a gun, and right before he accelerated by the crowd someone smacked the back of his truck What the heck do you think is going to happen? He might've thought he was being shot at. If you look at the footage, he's trying not to hit anyone until they start swarming him and hit his car.
> 
> He even cried when he realized someone had died. I highly doubt he meant for anyone to be hurt, he just got spooked after a gun-toting mob attacked his car and threatened his safety.


Crying in court doesn't mean shit.
The actual video shows a completely different story as does the evidence before he went down there. The video doesn't show him running away from anyone, it shows him accelerating into the crowd of people with ample time to slow down, honk his horn, etc.. It was reported that he actually stopped at that road backed up into a 4-way intersection, and accelerated into that crowd of people. He could have taken literally any other way, but accelerated forward into a crowd of people instead. His claims directly contradict video evidence. You are trying to refute video evidence that directly contradicts your claims.
Also crying doesn't and claiming he was innocent doesn't mean he's some victim here. He had a history of Neo-Nazi views before this event and it's pretty clear that this was an attack of opportunity.


Attacker3 said:


> haha yes don't run from an angry mob haha, just like, let them attack you, dude!


Expect he wasn't running from an angry mob, in fact there was no "angry mob" chasing anyone. You are acting like there this was an outright riot, when in reality it wasn't. He drove down there already fully aware that people on both sides had weapons, it's not like he was just some random person who just happened upon the protest and wasn't sure what was going on.
Of course there's still a lot of issues that you seem to be avoiding. One of the biggest issues being that if he was trying escape people, but didn't mean to run over a crowd of people, then why was there no attempt to warn the people he was running into? He didn't drive slower into the crowd holding his horn down like a normal person would if they were trying to gain attention from a crowd of people. Coupled with the fact that if he was being threatened, why did he back his car up a block before accelerating into the crowd of people? For someone trying to get away in a hurry, he sure wasn't in much of a hurry. The facts don't add up the claims. You want to pretend there's another side to this story, but the other side doesn't connect to reality.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 17, 2018)

Ya'know, it used to be that defending Nazis was like... A bad thing?...


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 17, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ya'know, it used to be that defending Nazis was like... A bad thing?...


"Yeah, but hating them also makes you bad as them!" -The Right


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 17, 2018)

Lilith Valentine said:


> "Yeah, but hating them also makes you bad as them!" -The Right


Hey, saying that you want to live in a world without Nazis is hate speech against Nazis


----------



## Xzi (Sep 18, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> haha yes don't run from an angry mob haha, just like, let them attack you, dude!


Now I know you're out of rebuttals because that's not at all what I said or even what I implied.  Driving away *and* hitting nobody with his car was always an option.  If you're trying to drive* away*, then getting *stuck* in a crowd of pedestrians and being forced to *reverse* isn't going to help accomplish that goal, now is it?


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 18, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Ya'know, it used to be that defending Nazis was like... A bad thing?...


It is possible to still find both of the groups or their broad headings under discussion to be dickheads. He what throws the first punch and all that.



Lilith Valentine said:


> Expect looking into them the majority of what they've done has just been counter protest and most act of violence have been against publicly exposed Nazis. They actually haven't committed any real acts of terrorism.
> That's not what they are actually about. It's a movement to expose and to stop the very public raise of Nazism. They aren't targeting innocent people just walking down the street, they are going after people who've already revealed themselves as Nazis. I fail to see how going after people who've already publicly shown that they want to kill people is a problem.
> 
> I find it impressive that they are often called "Fascist" when in reality they show no Fascist ideologies. They aren't pushing for an authoritarian government that can't be criticized. They aren't pushing for extreme Nationalism. They aren't pushing for a military government. Despite what most people believe they aren't pushing for extreme government censorship. The only thing they are pushing for is exposing and stopping the raise of Alt-Right/Neo-Nazism that has become extremely public these days. The reason why this is a threat is because Trump is a Fascist.



Fascist might be an incorrect term if going strict historical/literal, however even the mighty Oxford English dictionary ( https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fascism ) notes common parlance today has it as "extreme authoritarian, oppressive, or intolerant views or practices" and they commonly have a massive authoritarian bent (even the supposed anarchists within them which is endlessly amusing to me).

As far as alt right and neo nazis... largely a bunch of wankers but there are so very few of them that it hardly seems worth worrying about. Point at laugh at their drivel if you want but there are more pressing issues to be worrying about from where I sit.

I would similarly fall back to the old default of "are said publicly exposed Nazis engaged in violence at the time?". If you are going to try to tell me speech is violent then please make it a good argument as most bodies of law, ethics and such say speech is speech save for the usual incitement (yelling bomb and what have you), slander/libel, intellectual property and such stuff. "want to kill" might be hyperbolic as well -- intent under the law is a fairly narrow thing.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 18, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> It is possible to still find both of the groups or their broad headings under discussion to be dickheads. He what throws the first punch and all that.


I didn't say that wasn't the case.


----------



## FAST6191 (Sep 18, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I didn't say that wasn't the case.


True but you find yourself engaged in many of the trappings of those that would try to deny people the chance to speak in various manners, and previous conversations we have had might indicate you don't disavow such actions entirely. Walk the line if you will though.

When I see people out there trashing buildings, messing with public furniture, harassing police, not listening to police which are operating within what society generally classes as acceptable parameters, instigating confrontation, not selecting targets of their ire carefully (frequently going into outright assault) I can put aside what their underlying motivations are and just look at that. Hearts and minds man, hearts and minds. Maybe it is all bystander effect and provocateur infiltrators (I doubt it but hey). Similarly Joe88's picture might have been somewhat satirical but the wide brush that seems to be used does them no favours at all -- it is almost as though they are inventing enemies by shifting goalposts and if you want to talk about disingenuous tactics you have one of the ur examples in that.


----------



## Attacker3 (Sep 18, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Driving away *and* hitting nobody with his car was always an option.  If you're trying to drive* away*, then getting *stuck* in a crowd of pedestrians and being forced to *reverse* isn't going to help accomplish that goal, now is it?


if you watched the video it was literally the only place he could have went. He slowly entered the crowd, was attacked, people started swarming, he stepped on the pedal to GTFO.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 18, 2018)

Attacker3 said:


> if you watched the video it was literally the only place he could have went. He slowly entered the crowd, was attacked, people started swarming, he stepped on the pedal to GTFO.


Just stop.  He did not "slowly" enter the crowd or nobody would've been hit or ended up underneath the vehicle.  Condemning murderers really isn't that hard, you're just entirely too invested in politics as a team sport.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 18, 2018)

Spoiler: Contains semi-graphic footage of car hitting pedestrians, this is your content warning







This is a video that's stitched together from a handful of different cameras that were rolling to create a chronology of the event. Please, I'm BEGGING you, try to justify how the driver was doing anything other than intentionally hitting the crowd.


----------



## Viri (Sep 18, 2018)

Hey now, I posted a few times on that cesspit, and totally not bias subreddit known as /r/politics(mainly to troll), don't lump me in with those fuckers! Don't tag me bro!


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 18, 2018)

Viri said:


> Hey now, I posted a few times on that cesspit, and totally not bias subreddit known as /r/politics(mainly to troll), don't lump me in with those fuckers! Don't tag me bro!


Do you mean /r/politic? /r/politics isn't on that list.

That said, if you have been tagged while shitposting/trolling, if you could share your reddit username, its possible to review this and let people whitelist you. (since you can review your messages, and as mentioned in the OP you can whitelist people at the URL).


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 18, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Do you mean /r/politic? /r/politics isn't on that list.
> 
> That said, if you have been tagged while shitposting/trolling, if you could share your reddit username, its possible to review this and let people whitelist you. (since you can review your messages, and as mentioned in the OP you can whitelist people at the URL).


Although wouldn't it be best that trolls are in the filter too?


----------



## Viri (Sep 18, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Do you mean /r/politic? /r/politics isn't on that list.


Wow, what a surprise! I guess I should have known that /r/politics were the "good guys", and not part of your "Evil subreddit naughty list"! I mean, after all, they're on your team, right?

And hell no, I'm not posting my Reddit name here!


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 18, 2018)

Viri said:


> Wow, what a surprise! I guess I should have known that /r/politics were the "good guys", and not part of your "Evil subreddit naughty list"! I mean, after all, they're on your team, right?
> 
> And hell no, I'm not posting my Reddit name here!





Spoiler












Seriously though, take a step back and actually read. He's not the author of the software, he's just saying what you could do in the event you get tagged


----------



## Viri (Sep 18, 2018)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, excuse me then, my mistake. I wouldn't want to get added onto the Author's (((list))), that is totally nothing like the AltRight's Jewish list.


----------



## Xzi (Sep 18, 2018)

Viri said:


> Oh, excuse me then, my mistake. I wouldn't want to get added onto the Author's (((list))), that is totally nothing like the AltRight's Jewish list.


It's about ideology, not race/ethnicity.  You're not winning anybody over by playing the victim card.  Maybe just don't frequent alt-right subreddits if you don't want to be tagged as a user of them.  It's on an individual basis anyway, I've seen plenty of reasonable people who were tagged as users of one of those subs.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Sep 18, 2018)

Viri said:


> Oh, excuse me then, my mistake. I wouldn't want to get added onto the Author's (((list))), that is totally nothing like the AltRight's Jewish list.


Again, I'd encourage you to use your eyeballs. I posed the same concern on the first page, and it was subsequently addressed


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 18, 2018)

Viri said:


> Wow, what a surprise! I guess I should have known that /r/politics were the "good guys", and not part of your "Evil subreddit naughty list"! I mean, after all, they're on your team, right?
> 
> And hell no, I'm not posting my Reddit name here!


Fair enough, assuming you were genuine (although this response even puts that into doubt), this just means I couldn't investigate myself and whitelist you based on that.

Nobody could force you to hand it over, nor have I any reason to press it any futher.

As far as politcalness goes, I think the extension makes it rather clear on what type of subs it intents to adress, so saying it can't be political and "should be fair to both sides" (or whatever people are trying to push) isn't part of the extensions intended goal.

As far as /r/politics goes (I don't frequent there myself, but their reputation preceeds them), just because they clean up fallacious arguers and alt-righties get downvoted into oblivion (this is something I've pretty consistently seen on the /r/politics threads that have been linked to me) doesn't mean that they are "on my team". For starters, cleaning up fallacious arguers means that the discussion doesn't get polluted by making personal attacks, whataboutisms, arguments with no basis in reality and so on and so forth, which in the end improves the quality of a discussion as a whole as it cuts down on derailing it.

Secondly, downvoting is done by the userbase of that subreddit, not influenced by the mods. Vote brigading is one of the few things reddits admins come down on _hard_, it's pretty much the only moment they will act on user behavior if it isn't prompted by a media scandal or causes a violent rift in a community (hello unprivating KiA after the creator realised what a hate sub it became and privated it), ergo it's reasonable to assume that the userbase of /r/politics doesn't really seem to agree with alt-right arguers, hence the extreme downvotes (and just to add in: downvotes are meant to be given out to comments that don't contribute to the discussion, but that's rather flimsy since few people do it like that, but we can also reasonably assume some portion of those voters do vote properly, which can say something about the quality of discussion alt-right arguers bring to the table).

And just to note: I don't frequent /r/politics, nor do I have any particular opinion on them. It's just that a mod team acting as a mod team isn't the goddamn end of the world. _It's what they're supposed to do._ To cite someone from earlier "have quality discussions, any more rules than that and your rules are bullshit". Cleaning up derailing arguments, bad faith arguments and so on and so forth means the mod team is doing it's job, because those types of discussions are just derailing from any kind of healthy discussion that could've been had.

Same reason why having rules against hate speech qualifies as making sure you have a quality discussion. Nobody is gonna have a friendly discourse if one party constantly refers to the other with slurs all the time (this is an example), even if it's behind their back, since that unneccesarily riles up the other party, which influences their mental state, which usually results in their arguments of being of lower quality, ergo that makes the discussion of _less quality_, which means that having rules against hate speech improves the quality of a discussion.


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 22, 2018)

CallmeBerto said:


> My problem with this is that people will no longer want to talk to those who they don't agree with. Example lets say this plug ID person X as apart of the "right".
> 
> You no longer want to talk to them? You don't even know them? Sounds extremely closed minded.





Chary said:


> It's sorta judging a book by its cover, no? Everyone freaked out when the alt-right used something like this to know which people were "SJWs" or "Clinton supporters" and hound them for it. Now the shoe's on the other foot, and I find it equally distasteful. Regardless, Reddit's a cesspool anyway.
> 
> (Tho, if it keeps me away from leftover incels...lol)





Ev1l0rd said:


> So this thread is half me shilling (what I think) is a very useful extension, and half me wanting to be curious as to what people think of this type of concept. Given how the extension is by it's nature political, I think the best place to post it would be here, but apologies if I'm wrong about that.
> 
> So basically, there is this reddit extension called masstagger, made by /u/morpen. It's purpose is to tag posters to far-right reactionary subreddits (the_donald 'n co.) as well as "manosphere subs" (subreddits like incels or MGTOW), Nazi subs (honestly, take your pick) and the more "gateway"-esque communities to these kinds of spheres (TumblrInAction, SJW-hate subs, furry hating subs).
> 
> ...



The people who use this extension aren't considering the context of the people visiting the subreddit.
Just wait until this expands on to further subreddits.


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 23, 2018)

Xzi said:


> If 4chan has moderators then they log in like once a year.





Ev1l0rd said:


> From what I know, they're decently active, it's just that 4chan has no rules against hate speech. The only things that usually get cleaned up is shit like CP or porn on the safe boards/furry shit outside of /trash/ and /b/.



https://www.4chan.org/rules

Most of the "hate speech" goes on /b/, /pol/, and /r9k/.
Also /trash/ isn't a board. Unless you meant /pol/.
The price of anonymity is people speaking about their true beliefs.


----------



## Ev1l0rd (Sep 23, 2018)

dAVID_ said:


> Also /trash/ isn't a board.


Actually it is. Try going to it. It's not listed on index, but it's where furry shit outside of /b/ gets shuffled to or whatever doesn't fit on other boards.


----------



## dAVID_ (Sep 23, 2018)

Ev1l0rd said:


> Actually it is. Try going to it. It's not listed on index, but it's where furry shit outside of /b/ gets shuffled to or whatever doesn't fit on other boards.


oh yeah lol


----------



## KingVamp (Sep 23, 2018)

I've been following this thread and all I can say, it isn't something I would use.


----------



## saleri (Apr 1, 2019)

Seems like a perfect tool for the average feminist womanchild which is most reddit users really.


----------



## weatMod (Apr 1, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> The problem is that people who identify as the alt-right are _very_ willing to go and bat for the Nazis or the KKK (white supremacy), which if you don't consider it sharing those beliefs (I personally think that if you're willing to go and defend that version of trash, you at the very least share some of their unique beliefs), should at the very least be highly concerning.
> 
> Also that last statement doesn't lead to a long trail of documented violence from people who say that towards white people (not counting the one or two incidents, but nutjobs are everywhere), whereas the alt-right has a long documented trail of violence in it's wake.


"the alt-right are _very_ willing to go and bat for the Nazis "
pretty ironic since the alt-right is a jewish movement started by ultra right wing zionist jews to keep  non jewish conservatives supporting israel
 founded by people like  Bretibart,  The Rebel , Ezra Levant, Mike Peinovtch


----------



## dAVID_ (Apr 3, 2019)

Ev1l0rd said:


> From what I know, they're decently active, it's just that 4chan has no rules against hate speech. The only things that usually get cleaned up is shit like CP or porn on the safe boards/furry shit outside of /trash/ and /b/.


The entire premise of 4chan (and most anonymous image boards) is to be able to post whatever you want, without anonymity.
Of course this has its limits, obviously illegal porn isn't allowed, the same could be said for death threats, bomb threats, etc.
If 4chan had rules against "hate speech" it wouldn't be 4chan. It would just be another internet forum.


----------



## Viri (Apr 3, 2019)

dAVID_ said:


> The entire premise of 4chan (and most anonymous image boards) is to be able to post whatever you want, without anonymity.
> Of course this has its limits, obviously illegal porn isn't allowed, the same could be said for death threats, bomb threats, etc.
> If 4chan had rules against "hate speech" it wouldn't be 4chan. It would just be another internet forum.


4chan is probably the biggest free speech site out there.


Also, is this considered "racist"?
https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopl...uncement_blackpeopletwitter_is_now_for_black/


----------



## dAVID_ (Apr 3, 2019)

Viri said:


> 4chan is probably the biggest free speech site out there.
> 
> 
> Also, is this considered "racist"?
> https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopl...uncement_blackpeopletwitter_is_now_for_black/


It is racist.
Just imagine how people would react if there was a whitepeopletwitter only for whites.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Apr 4, 2019)

I generally just visit Reddit for the piracy board and a VPN one. This thing is more towards people who spend too much time there, I guess.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2019)

Viri said:


> Also, is this considered "racist"?
> https://www.reddit.com/r/BlackPeopl...uncement_blackpeopletwitter_is_now_for_black/





dAVID_ said:


> It is racist.
> Just imagine how people would react if there was a whitepeopletwitter only for whites.


FYI this was an April Fool's joke and the subreddit is now available to everyone again.  Of course, some idiots couldn't help but get way too butthurt over it and created a subreddit in retaliation: /r/SubForWhitePeopleOnly.  They managed to get that sub quarantined in less than a day though, rofl.


----------



## dAVID_ (Apr 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> FYI this was an April Fool's joke and the subreddit is now available to everyone again.  Of course, some idiots couldn't help but get way too butthurt over it and created a subreddit in retaliation: /r/SubForWhitePeopleOnly.  They managed to get that sub quarantined in less than a day though, rofl.


I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't.
Though I was taking a leap of faith by assuming that it wasn't a joke.


----------



## Captain_N (Apr 4, 2019)

I think ill use it to find out all users that collusion with Russians....


----------



## Viri (Apr 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> FYI this was an April Fool's joke and the subreddit is now available to everyone again.  Of course, some idiots couldn't help but get way too butthurt over it and created a subreddit in retaliation: /r/SubForWhitePeopleOnly.  They managed to get that sub quarantined in less than a day though, rofl.


I kinda figured that, when the way they were approving people were asking them to take a picture of their arm, and send it to a mod.


----------

