White supremacist site hacked, illegal activities exposed

[The Reformed American Republic]

Just spoiler it.

Tbh, I was surprised.

They uncovered some minor vandalism. That's the big reveal. I would have expected far worse.

Agreed. I have read articles about Nazi terrorists ordering hits on people's lives, building bombs, plotting to target infrastructure, and other grotesque things that warrant a full scale crackdown by both the Federal government and local law enforcement.

[Ifreann]

It's a shame that people are so eager to have such simplistic views on the subject. People just lining up to declare that vandalism is always wrong, no matter what is being vandalised, no matter what the nature of the vandalism, no matter the motives. No thoughts, no nuance, only obey the law.

No, you're strawmanning me. I am not in favor of blindly following the law 100% of the time. I'm saying tearing down a statue of George Floyd isn't worse than destroying a statue of Washington. Your ideology or position on the culture war is not added nuance. They're both bad.

Are they? I don't see why both of those actions should be considered morally equivalent.

When I looked at this thread, I expected plots against people's life or something along those lines, not vandalism that simply won't be "tolerated" due to culture war positions.

What's your point?

[United Nations of Gaia]

Right wingers are painfully incapable of understanding nuance, they're like robots, it's either 0 or 1.

1. I'm not right wing.
2. That post can equally apply to you. Leftists like you also don't get nuance and also act like robots following a script.

Code: Select all

If statue a person I like = true,
Vandalism, horrible crime,

If statue a person I like = false,
Justified, not a crime

That is not nuance. That's just seeking selective enforcement of the law based merely on your culture war positions, which to me is not sufficient to warrant a significant difference in how both cases are treated. That does not mean I blindly follow the law either, just that I have the nuance to know that following and enforcing anti-vandalism laws equally is not the same as enforcing the Dred Scott decision or segregation laws, or something along those lines.

It's not selective enforcement of the law lol, I recognize that both are illegal, thing is tho, I don't think obeying the law 100% of the time is something that should be done.
If a statue of Hitler was protected by law, would you be against people tearing it down? If you respond yes, then yeah, I'm sorry but you're the one acting like a robot programmed to follow governmental commandments rather than applying nuance.
I think slave owners shouldn't be memorialized, neither should war criminals, and as such, vandalism is fine, even if it is a crime, and that murals to victims of murder are something that shouldn't be vandalized, because it's immoral.
I've never once made an argument from a legal standpoint, only a moral one, again, you people just really don't like to read or understand what is being said.

[The Reformed American Republic]

No, you're strawmanning me. I am not in favor of blindly following the law 100% of the time. I'm saying tearing down a statue of George Floyd isn't worse than destroying a statue of Washington. Your ideology or position on the culture war is not added nuance. They're both bad.

Are they? I don't see why both of those actions should be considered morally equivalent.

When I looked at this thread, I expected plots against people's life or something along those lines, not vandalism that simply won't be "tolerated" due to culture war positions.

What's your point?

When you tie your perception of "morality" to the culture war positions, you won't, but to me, it's just two groups tearing down statues that offend them. Both men had vices, and it is quite clear their statues are not celebrating them. If there is a moral difference, it is insufficient in my view to change the punishments.

you people just really don't like to read or understand what is being said.

Like when you missed when I said I don't think the law should be abided 100% of the time. I just don't think the statues mentioned are one of those cases.

You don't seem to like to read or understand what I'm saying either.

If a statue of Hitler was protected by law, would you be against people tearing it down?

No, but Hitler would be a different case. Hitler exterminated 13 million people by combining industry with mass murder, and would have killed millions more had he not been defeated, and he threw much of the world into war with the goal to simply kill more people. Any statue of him would be to celebrate that and nothing more. It's also so much worse than the Founders were and the statue would have a very different meaning.

[United Nations of Gaia]

Like when you missed when I said I don't think the law should be abided 100% of the time. I just don't think the statues mentioned are one of those cases.

You don't seem to like to read or understand what I'm saying either.

You're the one making a legal argument here, not me, you're the one disregarding the moral nuance presented here by just saying "But law", not me.
So far I've seen you arguing that when it comes to memorials law should be obeyed, so I don't really care if you say you don't support following the law 100% of the time, because you do when it comes to the thing we're arguing about.

No, but Hitler would be a different case. Hitler exterminated 13 million people by combining industry with mass murder, and would have killed millions more had he not been defeated, and he threw much of the world into war with the goal to simply kill more people. Any statue of him would be to celebrate that and nothing more. It's also so much worse than the Founders were and the statue would have a very different meaning.

Slavers should get he same treatment.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Like when you missed when I said I don't think the law should be abided 100% of the time. I just don't think the statues mentioned are one of those cases.

You don't seem to like to read or understand what I'm saying either.

You're the one making a legal argument here, not me, you're the one disregarding the moral nuance presented here by just saying "But law", not me.
So far I've seen you arguing that when it comes to memorials law should be obeyed, so I don't really care if you say you don't support following the law 100% of the time, because you do when it comes to the thing we're arguing about.

No, but Hitler would be a different case. Hitler exterminated 13 million people by combining industry with mass murder, and would have killed millions more had he not been defeated, and he threw much of the world into war with the goal to simply kill more people. Any statue of him would be to celebrate that and nothing more. It's also so much worse than the Founders were and the statue would have a very different meaning.

Slavers should get he same treatment.

I disagree. The moral difference is offset by the fact they were products of their time, and it is not their vices being celebrated. A statue of Washington is not nostalgia for the institution of slavery.

I also did not make any legal arguments, but rather that your moral stance was insufficient. "But law" is a strawman of my argument and I think you know that. Everyone thinks they have a moral reason to violate the law, and I am only willing to entertain some of them. That is not the same as saying the law should always be obeyed.

[United Nations of Gaia]

I disagree. The moral difference is offset by the fact they were products of their time, and it is not their vices being celebrated. A statue of Washington is not nostalgia for the institution of slavery.

Being products of their time does not justify fucking slavery stars above us all, the same can be said of Hitler, he genocided the Jews because he was a product of his time, antisemitism was widespread you see! Lets remember the good vices on how he revitalized Germany and liked animals and blah blah blah.
This is a bad take and I really, really hope you just worded it atrociously.

I also did not make any legal arguments, but rather that your moral stance was insufficient. "But law" is a strawman of my argument and I think you know that. Everyone thinks they have a moral reason to violate the law, and I am only willing to entertain some of them. That is not the same as saying the law should always be obeyed.

If supporting slavery is an insufficient reason for you to take down someone's statue then I don't want to hear of your moral compass sorry.

[Hemakral]

Yeah, but because it's right-wingers, it needs to be treated as if they had been found engaging in conspiracy to commit genocide.

Isn't that kind of what Nazis do?

[The Reformed American Republic]

I disagree. The moral difference is offset by the fact they were products of their time, and it is not their vices being celebrated. A statue of Washington is not nostalgia for the institution of slavery.

Being products of their time does not justify fucking slavery stars above us all, the same can be said of Hitler, he genocided the Jews because he was a product of his time, antisemitism was widespread you see! Lets remember the good vices on how he revitalized Germany and liked animals and blah blah blah.
This is a bad take and I really, really hope you just worded it atrociously.

I also did not make any legal arguments, but rather that your moral stance was insufficient. "But law" is a strawman of my argument and I think you know that. Everyone thinks they have a moral reason to violate the law, and I am only willing to entertain some of them. That is not the same as saying the law should always be obeyed.

If supporting slavery is an insufficient reason for you to take down someone's statue then I don't want to hear of your moral compass sorry.

Yeah, but it wasn't a common position that over six million of them should be put in gas chambers or worked to death. That disgusted pretty much everyone, so much so, that it lead to a backlash against it.

And you're getting angry at me over nothing. Please calm down before responding.

[United Nations of Gaia]

Being products of their time does not justify fucking slavery stars above us all, the same can be said of Hitler, he genocided the Jews because he was a product of his time, antisemitism was widespread you see! Lets remember the good vices on how he revitalized Germany and liked animals and blah blah blah.
This is a bad take and I really, really hope you just worded it atrociously.


If supporting slavery is an insufficient reason for you to take down someone's statue then I don't want to hear of your moral compass sorry.

Yeah, but it wasn't a common position that over six million of them should be put in gas chambers or worked to death. That disgusted pretty much everyone, so much so, that it lead to a backlash against it.

And you're getting angry at me over nothing. Please calm down before responding.

If it were a common position would his actions be justified under "product of his time"?
Like come on man I don't think this is the hill you want to die on, it's not hard to say 'slavery bad and people who owned and promoted slavery shouldn't be memorialized, even if owning slaves back then was normal'.
An atrocious act is an atrocious act, no matter if it was common back then, when Hitler ruled over Germany a large enough amount of people were on board that he wasn't overthrown, and the treatment of Jews was common knowledge, it wasn't something done in shu-shu by the Nazis.

Also tone policing isn't a good sign...

[Countesia]

Oh no, fascists are scum and undeserving of the air they breathe, who knew?

[Countesia]

Oh no, fascists are scum and undeserving of the air they breathe, who knew?

That seems like an emotional overreaction to vandalism.

I stand by this statement regardless of what has transpired.

Why do you care so much about what I think of fascists? Sus

[Indomitable Friendship]

Morons, but to be fair, PF is a honeypot, so at least some of the agitations are coming from law enforcement and feds, as usual.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Yeah, but it wasn't a common position that over six million of them should be put in gas chambers or worked to death. That disgusted pretty much everyone, so much so, that it lead to a backlash against it.

And you're getting angry at me over nothing. Please calm down before responding.

If it were a common position would his actions be justified under "product of his time"?
Like come on man I don't think this is the hill you want to die on, it's not hard to say 'slavery bad and people who owned and promoted slavery shouldn't be memorialized, even if owning slaves back then was normal'.
An atrocious act is an atrocious act, no matter if it was common back then, when Hitler ruled over Germany a large enough amount of people were on board that he wasn't overthrown, and the treatment of Jews was common knowledge, it wasn't something done in shu-shu by the Nazis.

Also tone policing isn't a good sign...

I didn't tone police you. I just politely asked you to calm down.

No, it wouldn't be "justified" and I never said slavery was even justified, as it wasn't. I said historical figures should be partially forgiven in this case as products of their time in this case. This does not apply to Hitler. He had a monstrous vision that was so grotesque, anyone who wasn't brainwashed was disgusted by it. People killed SS POWs out of pure disgust. A more moderate form of antisemitism being popular does not change that: Hitler and his goons took it to a whole new level. I don't think there were many eras where it was considered acceptable to commit anything on par with the Holocaust anyway, going from country to country to continue the killing.

There's a reason why Hitler is in the top 5 of the most evil men in history. He is in a very unique league.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Morons, but to be fair, PF is a honeypot, so at least some of the agitations are coming from law enforcement and feds, as usual.

I doubt it. They're criminals who think crime committed by other cultural warriors justifies doing it themselves.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I'm pretty sure the FBI also declined to say whether or not there were operatives at the Capitol on January 6th, attempting to inflame the crowd.

That is nonsense. It's just to deflect blame for what happened from your political group, just like the dumb idea the election was stolen.

[The Reformed American Republic]

That is nonsense. It's just to deflect blame for what happened from your political group, just like the dumb idea the election was stolen.

It isn't nonsense.

Not a reliable source, nor does it show they were responsible. The people in the footage engaging in violence are not fed agents.

[United Nations of Gaia]

I didn't tone police you. I just politely asked you to calm down.

Which is tone policing, the only thing I got somewhat angry over was you implying it's ok that some figures did slavery because they did good things, oh and that this doesn't apply to Hitler because he's a special boy.
I think I am more than justified to be angry over this, because this is a very insulting hill to die over.

No, it wouldn't be "justified" and I never said slavery was even justified, as it wasn't. I said historical figures should be partially forgiven in this case as products of their time in this case. This does not apply to Hitler. He had a monstrous vision that was so grotesque, anyone who wasn't brainwashed was disgusted by it. People killed SS POWs out of pure disgust. A more moderate form of antisemitism being popular does not change that: Hitler and his goons took it to a whole new level. I don't think there were many eras where it was considered acceptable to commit anything on par with the Holocaust anyway, going from country to country to continue the killing.

Hitler being worse does not change your initial argument, which was, that the slave owners that have memorials built of them can be partially forgiven because they were products of their time, because what they did was common and accepted.
The obvious counter to that being that were Hitler's ideology and beliefs to be commonplace, which, they were, the Holocaust happened for a reason, Jews were routinely killed for being Jews all over the world, the pogroms on eastern Europe are a good example, that makes his actions more forgivable by your logic, and allows us to focus on his good merits!
To which I say it is nonsense, just because something was common place back when does not mean it can be partially forgiven, slavery is slavery, it's abhorrent, and people who promoted it, even in shu-shu, should not be memorialized, this extends to the founders, they are not some mythical figures, quite frankly the utter inability of Americans to even consider that the founders shouldn't be anything short of deified to me is concerning.
I am Russian, and I have no problems with statues of Lenin being taken down, while yes, he did modernize the country and did a fuck ton of good, he was still evil, still betrayed his principles, the sooner you accept the same with the founders, and the fact that "All men are created equal" is something they didn't bother enforcing, the better.
Have I put enough razor wire around this hill now? Or are you still planning on dying here?

There's a reason why Hitler is in the top 5 of the most evil men in history. He is in a very unique league.

Evil being more evil than a different evil does not mean different evil can be forgiven.

[Countesia]

I stand by this statement regardless of what has transpired.

Why do you care so much about what I think of fascists? Sus

I don't at all care, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous your comment was.

Morons, but to be fair, PF is a honeypot, so at least some of the agitations are coming from law enforcement and feds, as usual.

Yeah, there's that too. I'm pretty sure the FBI also declined to say whether or not there were operatives at the Capitol on January 6th, attempting to inflame the crowd.

Me thinking fascists are scum is ridiculous? Ok then fashboi

[Salus Maior]

Get wrecked Adolf.

[Lady Victory]

Oh no!

Anyway...

[Alkmaaria]

I didn't tone police you. I just politely asked you to calm down.

Which is tone policing, the only thing I got somewhat angry over was you implying it's ok that some figures did slavery because they did good things, oh and that this doesn't apply to Hitler because he's a special boy.
I think I am more than justified to be angry over this, because this is a very insulting hill to die over.

No, it wouldn't be "justified" and I never said slavery was even justified, as it wasn't. I said historical figures should be partially forgiven in this case as products of their time in this case. This does not apply to Hitler. He had a monstrous vision that was so grotesque, anyone who wasn't brainwashed was disgusted by it. People killed SS POWs out of pure disgust. A more moderate form of antisemitism being popular does not change that: Hitler and his goons took it to a whole new level. I don't think there were many eras where it was considered acceptable to commit anything on par with the Holocaust anyway, going from country to country to continue the killing.

Hitler being worse does not change your initial argument, which was, that the slave owners that have memorials built of them can be partially forgiven because they were products of their time, because what they did was common and accepted.
The obvious counter to that being that were Hitler's ideology and beliefs to be commonplace, which, they were, the Holocaust happened for a reason, Jews were routinely killed for being Jews all over the world, the pogroms on eastern Europe are a good example, that makes his actions more forgivable by your logic, and allows us to focus on his good merits!
To which I say it is nonsense, just because something was common place back when does not mean it can be partially forgiven, slavery is slavery, it's abhorrent, and people who promoted it, even in shu-shu, should not be memorialized, this extends to the founders, they are not some mythical figures, quite frankly the utter inability of Americans to even consider that the founders shouldn't be anything short of deified to me is concerning.
I am Russian, and I have no problems with statues of Lenin being taken down, while yes, he did modernize the country and did a fuck ton of good, he was still evil, still betrayed his principles, the sooner you accept the same with the founders, and the fact that "All men are created equal" is something they didn't bother enforcing, the better.
Have I put enough razor wire around this hill now? Or are you still planning on dying here?

There's a reason why Hitler is in the top 5 of the most evil men in history. He is in a very unique league.

Evil being more evil than a different evil does not mean different evil can be forgiven.

Not only were they slavers, they were also traitors. I really don't get "southern pride". I am from the south and couldn't give two craps about "dixie heritage" (I am a 4th generation Italian immigrant) or what not. Ultimately we are all Americans, and should be acting that way. The fact that I see so many people saying "America first" and then flying the dixie flag is incredibly ironic. Even while I would consider myself particularly patriotic, it is stupid that I see so many people flying the flag of traitors.
It also doesn't make sense to me how you could make a nationality out of owning slaves but it apparently works.
So it makes sense that the statues of the traitors are being torn down, and honestly maybe they should be torn down. Although they should only be torn down by the government, and criminals should be criminally prosecuted.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Which is tone policing, the only thing I got somewhat angry over was you implying it's ok that some figures did slavery because they did good things, oh and that this doesn't apply to Hitler because he's a special boy.
I think I am more than justified to be angry over this, because this is a very insulting hill to die over.



Hitler being worse does not change your initial argument, which was, that the slave owners that have memorials built of them can be partially forgiven because they were products of their time, because what they did was common and accepted.
The obvious counter to that being that were Hitler's ideology and beliefs to be commonplace, which, they were, the Holocaust happened for a reason, Jews were routinely killed for being Jews all over the world, the pogroms on eastern Europe are a good example, that makes his actions more forgivable by your logic, and allows us to focus on his good merits!
To which I say it is nonsense, just because something was common place back when does not mean it can be partially forgiven, slavery is slavery, it's abhorrent, and people who promoted it, even in shu-shu, should not be memorialized, this extends to the founders, they are not some mythical figures, quite frankly the utter inability of Americans to even consider that the founders shouldn't be anything short of deified to me is concerning.
I am Russian, and I have no problems with statues of Lenin being taken down, while yes, he did modernize the country and did a fuck ton of good, he was still evil, still betrayed his principles, the sooner you accept the same with the founders, and the fact that "All men are created equal" is something they didn't bother enforcing, the better.
Have I put enough razor wire around this hill now? Or are you still planning on dying here?


Evil being more evil than a different evil does not mean different evil can be forgiven.

Not only were they slavers, they were also traitors. I really don't get "southern pride". I am from the south and couldn't give two craps about "dixie heritage" (I am a 4th generation Italian immigrant) or what not. Ultimately we are all Americans, and should be acting that way. The fact that I see so many people saying "America first" and then flying the dixie flag is incredibly ironic. Even while I would consider myself particularly patriotic, it is stupid that I see so many people flying the flag of traitors.
It also doesn't make sense to me how you could make a nationality out of owning slaves but it apparently works.
So it makes sense that the statues of the traitors are being torn down, and honestly maybe they should be torn down. Although they should only be torn down by the government, and criminals should be criminally prosecuted.

I'm defending Founding Father statues, not Confederate ones.

[Ifreann]

Are they? I don't see why both of those actions should be considered morally equivalent.

What's your point?

When you tie your perception of "morality" to the culture war positions, you won't, but to me, it's just two groups tearing down statues that offend them.

But it's not. Destroying a George Floyd statue would obviously be a symbolic attack on the movement for racial justice. The message of such an action can only be that the brutal murders of innocent people by the police should continue, and that is a vile message to send. Whereas destroying a statue of George Washington would be a symbolic attack on the racism that has been present in American society since its inception. A message that is good, actually. Trying to characterise both of these things as just people tearing down statues that offend them is ridiculous. How can fighting for racial justice be morally equivalent to fighting against it? It would be a pretty shit system of morality that holds racism as a morally neutral thing whose presence or absence is neither good nor bad.

Both men had vices, and it is quite clear their statues are not celebrating them. If there is a moral difference, it is insufficient in my view to change the punishments.

Who's talking about punishments?

[Christian Confederation]

So Nazis changed there name from something clearly Nazi to something a little more Patriotic sounding. Then said Nazis discussed Nazi things and others planned/ executed vandalism and other petty crimes.
So same old same old of Neo Nazis and White Supremacists being an enefective joke of a domestic terror organization.
Meanwhile Antifa and other groups have been looting, rioting, assaulting, and killing people going on 3 years now. But no Patriots, Parents at the School Board, and the Nazi menace is the primary threat to American Security.