Mass tagging reddit users - What are your thoughts?

[The Catboy]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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

 

[The Catboy]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.