I'm not sure we should be celebrating what's basically an intimidation campaign to shutdown free speech. What they did was trespassing and theft in the service of shutting down political speech they disagreed with. It's pretty disgusting.
That's a bit much. People who go and yell shit in front of a camera, yeah, that's nothing to celebrate. However, random individuals coming together, learning new things, and working towards a common goal that harms pretty much nobody at all except the ego of an actor is something that should be celebrated. Plus, the techniques used are kind of neat. Think to yourself, if this was a nazi flag, would you feel the same way?
Furthermore, it's a bit ironic that you bring up an attempt to shut down free speech, when that's exactly what shia did when people started supporting trump on his opposition feed. Freedom of speech is freedom of speech from the government, not individuals, so he's perfectly in his right to do that, but still. And yes, stealing the flag is theft. I can't support or argue for that, but again, would you feel the same if it was a nazi flag?
I don't support trump, but calling this endeavor disgusting is disheartening.
98 people have upvoted this story at this point. Part of an "intimidation campaign to silence free speech" or some people just think it was an interesting activity?
Is it possible some/many/most of the people who actually participated in the activity also just found it interesting to do?
Oh good grief. These are the same people that were up in arms a few years ago when the use of the confederate flag was in the news. It's hypocritical to say the least.
And yes, I would feel the same way if someone did it to a Nazi flag or a confederate flag. I don't actually care that much about the specific political ideologies. But the increased tribalism and decreased tolerance for freedom of opinion is terrifying. It is disgusting and we shouldn't be celebrating it.
Because it became /r/The_Donald's de facto mascot and /r/The_Donald are all alt-right neo-nazis of course and the ADL classified it as antisemitic. Ignoring the very disclaimer they add that "not all Pepe images are symbols of hate speech".
Nevermind that outside of political circles and people who take The Internet way too seriously, Pepe is just a stupid meme that has transformed from "Sad Frog" to "Woznak's friend" to "Betrayer of Woznak" to "Smug Frog/Pepe" to "Rare Pepe". And due to its prevalence in Chan Culture became a stupid meme to tell Channers from Normies (REEEEEEE) with the red Pepe with the wavy tongue. Honestly that meme has transformed quite a bit over the years.
I'm convinced anyone who thinks Pepe is a symbol of the alt-right has no idea that The Internet has its own cultures and subcultures. It just so happens that 4chan and /r/The_Donald have a huge cross-section of users. No surprise that many 4chan memes are prominent there.
The worst defense I've seen are images of Pepe shopped to be Hitler/a Nazi. FFS, you can find the same for Mickey Mouse and Hello Kitty - or nearly anything actually. Shopping something into Hitler is common.
Makes me think if /r/The_Donald chose a Gay Pride or LGBT Flag as their "official flag" if it would cause people to second guess if someone supports LGBT or is an alt-right neo-nazi sympathizer. Talk about extremism.
E:
Just noticed your name and I feel you weren't asking your question seriously, but have a serious answer anyway, Mr. Jimmy Rustles
My nickname suggests that I am a 4chinner (which is true), but the question above was legitimate and was with the best intention.
The moment that Hillary went nuclear with the stupid, harmless frog was the moment that I questioned the things "progressive" people label people who don't agree with them. As silly as it was, it was truly the turning point of me re-examining what I read and listen to with a more skeptical approach.
Thanks for the answer - it really unrustled my jimmies.
I'm not so sure this particular example of collective aggression for the sake of silencing someone's project is harmless or inspirational. It's just black hat trolling. It is the opposite of the civility of social order you're trying to espouse.
This is the most mind-bendingly deluded post I've seen on HN in a while.
> individuals coming together, learning new things, and working towards a common goal
the common goal here is being an asshole
> if this was a nazi flag, would you feel the same way?
Shia's flag said "he will not divide us" it was a message of unity that someone took down to replace with the representation of an administration with actual white nationalists as advisors.
> it's a bit ironic that you bring up an attempt to shut down free speech, when that's exactly what shia did
Yelling into someone's livefeed is free speech in a public place, but continuing to follow them and ultimately trespassing onto private property is harassment. Free speech isn't yelling whatever you want whenever you want. It's freedom from the government oppressing your speech.
>would you feel the same if it was a nazi flag?
This again? Seriously. Here's a challenge for you in the future: try to make a sound argument without simply throwing the word "nazi" in.
>Shia's flag said "he will not divide us" it was a message of unity
Unity that excludes almost half of the US population. I'm glad that people reacted against the passive-aggresiveness of this message when the stream was hosted in a public space. I don't condone stealing on a private property but let's not fool ourselves here, the message of this art project is reinforcing the US vs THEM mentality that is currently tearing Americans apart rather than truly trying to unify people.
It does not. They are free and encouraged to join in (AFAIK).
Those who embrace racial and religious discrimination, of course, might not choose the join, as the message contradicts their beliefs. But that is an old issue and red herring, the paradox of tolerance. Tolerate everyone but the intolerant, who are parasites on the social contract of tolerance.
"he will not divide us" means that you're saying he's trying to divide you. So, you're making a claim about someone without backing it, and when people actually show up in support of him, you switch off the camera to preserve the narrative?
but it also says "he". it is obviously against trump/republicans. Its a political statement He can make it, but others can disagree, that is the beauty of free speech.
I think trump is an imbecile, but denying his supporters free speech as you are doing, is exactly why he is popular.
but it also says "he". it is obviously against trump/republicans. Its a political statement He can make it, but others can disagree, thats beauty of free speech.
I think trump is an imbecile, but denying his supporters free speech as you are doing, is exactly why he is popular.
Only about half of eligible voters voted. Of those, slightly more voted Democrat than Republican, and a distant few voted for someone else.
Despite getting the second-most votes nationally, the geographic distribution of the Republican votes gained them quite a few more "electoral college votes" (i.e. winning points) than the Democrats. The electoral college system gives more power to the countryside than the cities, proportional to the population.
I don't think anywhere near half the country wants to be lumped into a generalization with the people yelling into that camera. Check out some of the footage on youtube.. I'm pretty sure Shia was arrested for assaulting someone who was 'memeing' the camera as well; setting the maturity bar high... It's those same people on that camera who are the ones terrorizing the streets, tearing down/burning free speech signs and assaulting those with differing views. Anyone who actually thinks that those folks are the ones denying free speech are entirely deluded. Commence down-voting.
are you suggesting it's /pol/-type Trump supporters burning free speech signs, or am I misreading your comment? Because it's antifa members and black-bloc anarchists that are doing that.
No, should've made it more clear apparently. I'm referring to the 'antifa' members (who are massively overrepresented) by msm; same misrepresentation/oversampling and 'echo chamber' that led to the massive Trump 'suprise.' I'm only suggesting the comment I responded to, which I agree with ignored even more then just half the population not almost half.
ah gotcha. Yeah I don't think the majority of non-Trump-supporters would have anything positive to say about the rioters. It's horseshoe theory in action - there are 2 kinds of fascist; fascists and anti-fascists.
GP condemned the channers' game by calling it "an intimidation campaign to shutdown free speech" and "shutting down political speech they disagreed with." You are allowed to fly a nazi flag in the US. Are you actually saying you're OK with the suppression of completely legal, non-violence inciting speech you disagree with? That is the entire crux of GP's point.
That's only trivially (in the formal meaning) true, because "free speech" has no unambiguous literal meaning. The context you are referring to has repeatedly born out that American law allows private citizens to say or express anything, no matter how hateful, as long as it's not an incitement to violence nor slanders a specific party.
The reasoning is pretty straight-forward. Tomorrow (or apparently literally today given the craziness of the current socio-political discourse), you and I will be considered the Nazis.
Stop dodging, actually respond to what you're replying to. Do you consider capturing the hypothetical Nazi flag differently than the HSNDU flag?
>The context you are referring to has repeatedly born out that American law allows private citizens to say or express anything, no matter how hateful, as long as it's not an incitement to violence nor slanders a specific party.
This is still very ambiguous. There are MANY situations where the above statement is not true.
>you and I will be considered the Nazis.
That's absurd. If you look back 100 years ago there are many people I would not consider a "nazi" so why would it hold true 100 years from now? Your rhetoric has very little substance. It's Godwin all the way down.
>Stop dodging, actually respond to what you're replying to. Do you consider capturing the hypothetical Nazi flag differently than the HSNDU flag?
I'm not dodging anything, I'm sick of people throwing around the freedom of speech like it justifies everything anyone wants to say.
To answer your question: As an individual I view it very differently.
BUT I don't think the government should snatch either flag, and if you're on someone else's private property doing so it should definitely be considered theft.
">The context you are referring to has repeatedly born out that American law allows private citizens to say or express anything, no matter how hateful, as long as it's not an incitement to violence nor slanders a specific party.
This is still very ambiguous. There are MANY situations where the above statement is not true."
Perhaps the point you're trying to make is that explicitly illegal activity is not free speech? I thought that was obvious, but maybe not. Also, your third point isn't about private citizens.
Though yes, one of my posts was wrong - "incitement to violence" should have been "incitement to illegal activity."
Rationally, entities have choice. Any time an entity or an aggregate removes choice from an entity, by way of disrupting that entities communications, it is removal of choice for entity to speak freely.
You remove choice from Shia when you attempt to indicate the irony in him "shutting down free speech" on his feed. In fact, given it is his communications channel, his right to limit anything disrupting that channel is well within his right, as entities have rational choice to speak their mind.
Irrational choice is where logical arguments paralyze trusted communication.
Your post, for example, does this here, by saying "but still", indicating disapproval of his actions. Further, you remove choice from the parent's post about their emotion of disgust.
I find it disgusting people will continue to rationalize altering communication's trust in an effort to win an argument.
>I'm not sure we should be celebrating what's basically an intimidation campaign to shutdown free speech
An actor set up a camera and told people to chant a mantra into it. When people started saying political things he didn't like, he flipped his shit, got pushy and ended up getting arrested. When people started saying racist things (which is protected by the constitution) that he didn't like, he moved locations. That sounds a lot like trying to shutdown free speech.
>When people started saying racist things (which is protected by the constitution) that he didn't like, he moved locations. That sounds a lot like trying to shutdown free speech.
The Constitution doesn't compel private persons to provide a platform for speech they disagree with.
It's amazing how many people attempt to take the term "free speech" literally and avoid reading the few sentences in the actual amendment that provide context. Free speech is absolutely not the ability to say anything to anyone at any time.
Freedom of speech is a general principle and most consider it a bedrock principle of western / modern society. The US constitution provides that it won't be abridged by the government because the constitution is a document that is binding on the government of the United States. Just because it is legal to abridge someone's free speech does not necessarily make it a good idea - people are usually quite wary of platforms who place content-dependent restrictions on the type of speech that is allowed (with some notable exceptions for particularly unpopular opinions).
Note that I am not really taking a side on whether the actual theft of the flag was admirable or not here, I just want to make clear that just because it's constitutional for private individuals to do most anything (given that the constitution places almost no restrictions on individuals), that does not mean that the broader concept of freedom of speech only applies to governments.
Yeah, I know. This is brought up whenever someone mentions the concept of free speech as it relates to two private entities that aren't the government.
The point is that the comment I was responding to was painting this as a side A trying to limit the speech of side B. I was trying to say (quite poorly it seems) that this could just as easily be construed as side B trying to limit the speech of side A.
> What they did was trespassing and theft in the service of shutting down political speech they disagreed with
The most fun thing about this is that the whole thing could very possibly not be really politically motivated. Speculating, they would have not been disagreeing with the (message of the) speech but instead just stirring some shit up for "fun". These are not people who support Trump because they think he is a good leader. Instead they enjoy the drama and chaos he creates. Saying that "some people just want to see the world burn" might be bit extreme, but that is essentially the mentality there.
Of course that might be also completely bullshit and this was done by actual pro-Trump people. I haven't frequented 4chan lately (thank god), so I don't know what the scene there is these days.
Tennessee appears to have the concept of "Castle Doctrine" which says that "your home is your castle" and gives you a lot of latitude in what you can do to protect yourself and others but it doesn't extend to property. More the specific requirement is usually the belief that you (or they) are in immediate physical danger.
Attacking someone for stealing a flag from your property will probably land you in jail or worse.
Former Tn resident: yiu can shoot them if 1. They are in your house 2. They are threating your life, 3. You can ask them to get off your lawn 3 times then start blasting. I recall a deaf kid got shot for not getting off a lawn once and the guy was found not guilty.
While this was certainly illegal, I think it's hard to say that it was malicious. This has essentially become a (somewhat one-sided) prank war. If they intended to deplatform or suppress Shia, they could have done something much more mean-spirited than photobomb his video streams and snatch his flag.
> This has essentially become a (somewhat one-sided) prank war.
Isn't there another term for a one-sided prank war? I think it's called harassment or something? Combined with theft and vandalism... I can see why they prefer to be anonymous.
Compare his campaign messaging with some of the messaging out of the clinton machine and you will see how deep it goes.
Consider Trump's
1) Make America Great Again (subtext: we've been letting the establishment make america not-great)
2) Build a wall (subtext: I'm going to do something audacious and unpopular and there's not a damn thing they can do to stop me)
Clinton came back with several messages beyond the core "I'm with her" and none of them stuck, because they were the sort of thing you'd hear the teacher's pet say. Nobody likes a teacher's pet--they're no fun at parties.
I've been a part of many prank wars. You know when they stopped being fun and ended up getting people in trouble? When one side stopped enjoying it. I don't think the receiving team in this case is enjoying the prank. Which just makes it mean-spirited and low class.
Anon is just being a bag of dicks in this case, which means they either stop, or should get in legal trouble.
When deciding whether or not something is malicious, I don't think "they could have done something even worse" is the standard you judge it by. I think you're definitely right that they could have done worse but I'd argue it's already pretty malicious as it is.
It's funny how anti-doxxing the chan people are when it's directed at them, but they cheerfully do it against their enemies.
And let's not forget that along with relatively minor stuff like this, they'll be getting death threats and swatting attempts for the foreseeable future.
