Comment on Hacktivist deletes white supremacist websites live on stage during hacker conference

FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  The terrorist suddenly pays the victim when their terrorist site is taken down.

  source

  • ICastFist@programming.dev ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    The number one skill of every nazi and fashit is pretending to be victims

    source

    • cecilkorik@piefed.ca ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      It is always morally acceptable to punch a Nazi. No exceptions.

      source
• NatakuNox@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Tea bag yoImageu

  source
• Knightfox@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I mean, it is technically true, but in a trial with a jury of peers it wouldn’t matter. This reminds me of the old school outlaw definition. If you were declared an outlaw the laws of the land no longer applied to you. You could commit crimes, but it also meant anyone and everyone could commit crimes against you without repercussions. It was a bit of a given that you would commit crimes because if you were declared an outlaw you probably were already committing crimes, but now anyone could rob, harm, or even kill you and it wouldn’t be a crime.

  I say fuck these neo-nazis but this is cyber terrorism technically.

  source

  • Soup@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I call it self-defense, honestly.

    source

    • Knightfox@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Eh, I want to like this statement because I hate these people, but I can’t in good conscious call it something it isn’t. This sort of thing is the essence of debate because we have good people doing bad things to bad people and then have to justify why it’s ok despite it being bad. It’s justice vs righteousness, it’s lawful neutral vs lawful good. The only reason why this is acceptable is because it’s against people that we deem not worthy of legal protection, but as a precedent that’s dangerous territory. As soon as the definition of people not worthy of legal protection changes it suddenly becomes a problem.

      At it’s core this person probably committed a crime, but people don’t care because it’s against a bad ideologue. It’s like if we said it’s ok to round up and execute neo-nazis, a lot of people would rejoice, but if you change that to most any other group they would cry about human rights. At the end of the day rounding up and killing anyone is a bad thing no matter who it’s against.

      source

      • Soup@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        At some point the scales will not balance well and you need to be ok with that. There is no paradox of intolerance, for example, because tolerance is itself part of a social contract that bigots broke all on their own and once that’s out the window they do not get to reap the benefits of it. Social contracts aren’t easy math but they do make sense.

        This isn’t blowing up a furry website because someone thinks that’s weird. White supremacy is an incredibly dangerous ideology that has no place in whatever better society we claim to be aiming for. No one killed them for it, either. White supremacy built a website and a better person removed that website the same way one might paint over a swastika but leave the nice mural.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • Deceptichum@quokk.au ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        I can easily call it self defence. These people preach hate and would gladly see us dead if they were the majority. Ensuring they lack the ability to do so is defence.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • edible_funk@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Paradox of tolerance. It’s absolutely self defense at the society level.

        source
  • chaitae3@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Terrorism is the use of force against civilians to influence a nation’s policy. This is not it.

    source

    • Knightfox@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      I agreed with another comment that this is probably not cyber terrorism, because definitions of cyber terrorism indicate a wide spread impact on people while this only impacts a relatively small group. Your definition isn’t quite right either as one potential goal for cyber terrorism is to cause disruption or fear. Terrorism as a general term may be politically motivated but it doesn’t have to have the goal of influencing policy directly. Technically revenge can be a goal of terrorism.

      source
  • Rothe@piefed.social ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Technically illegal, yes, but it has nothing to do with “terrorism” though.

    source

    • Knightfox@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      You’re probably right, I went back and double checked the definition of cyber terrorism and the main difference is scale of impact. To be cyber terrorism it would probably have to impact a larger group of people.

      source

      • Hazor@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        It would also have to cause terror. The people using these websites live in such an abject state of terror about their own inferiority that this probably had no measurable effect anyway.

        source
  • yakko@feddit.uk ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I think you have sense on your side there about outlawry. It existed as the photo negative of the golden rule, and it’s a great way to make an example of people who break the social contract.

    source
• X@piefed.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  That admin can get fucked up the ass with shit-covered rusty barbed wire. They chose to be a shitwad, and someone chose to wipe them.

  source
• SaharaMaleikuhm@feddit.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Sounds rad actually

  source